00:00:06 #startmeeting api wg 00:00:10 Meeting started Thu Jul 9 00:00:06 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is etoews. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 00:00:11 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 00:00:14 The meeting name has been set to 'api_wg' 00:00:23 hey 00:00:47 well hello 00:01:42 o/ 00:01:51 yay! 00:02:07 one sec. i have to pull some brussel sprouts off the bbq. 00:02:14 nice 00:03:54 alright. that takes care of the first agenda item. 00:04:00 lol 00:04:04 #topic agenda 00:04:11 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda 00:04:21 #topic previous meeting action items 00:04:31 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_wg/2015/api_wg.2015-07-02-16.00.html 00:04:50 ha. no action items. i remember now. 00:04:58 #topic dashboard 00:05:05 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198826/ 00:05:22 i like what you've done so far 00:05:27 okay. this one is pretty important. 00:05:27 thx 00:05:56 it's impossible to keep track of where guidelines are in the merging pipeline 00:06:08 yea 00:06:11 we need this dashboard to show that at a glance. 00:06:27 how to use that? 00:06:36 alex_xu: 1 sec. 00:06:36 i think we might also need an indicator of when a guideline is ready for freeze 00:07:35 git clone https://github.com/stackforge/gerrit-dash-creator.git 00:07:36 cd gerrit-dash-creator/ 00:07:36 git review -d 198826 00:07:36 ./gerrit-dash-creator dashboards/api-wg.dash 00:08:01 alex_xu: that's what you need to do to see it in its current state 00:08:15 etoews: thanks 00:08:31 i'm on a mac so i change the last line to 00:08:31 ./gerrit-dash-creator dashboards/api-wg.dash | pbcopy 00:08:41 and paste the url into my browser 00:09:03 I see now, that is used to generate url 00:09:10 elmiko: there's a section titled "Ready to freeze" 00:09:18 ah, cool 00:10:36 except it doesn't work right all of the time 00:10:55 well, and my issue was more about if things have been sitting for awhile and not getting reviews 00:11:02 case in point the 5xx stuff 00:11:33 i was hoping for more reviews before we froze, and there are some issues coming up. but maybe that's a good thing 00:11:47 i certainly needed some advice on how to improve it 00:12:47 elmiko: i know what you mean. can you think of a way to codify that in the dashboard? 00:12:57 sadly no 00:13:41 that's the real meat of the issue, getting more involvement on guidelines that have some warts but need reviews 00:13:57 i expect no matter what we do we'll still need to verify what's going on in the dashboard vs what actually needs to happen. 00:14:04 agreed 00:14:07 it'll be a judgement call 00:14:53 for example, "Add generic name of each project for terms" should be in "Ready to freeze" but isn't :( 00:15:12 huh, weird 00:15:33 is the age parameter a "greater than" ? 00:15:42 (hasn't created dashboards before) 00:16:28 neither have i. that's why i could use more eyes on it. 00:16:34 have a look at "Merged in the past 7 days" 00:17:01 i use -age there to get the past 7 days 00:17:05 yea 00:17:55 i'll play around with your patch a little more and give some comments on the review 00:18:55 #link https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html 00:19:10 ah, very good ty 00:19:12 age:'AGE' 00:19:13 Amount of time that has expired since the change was last updated with a review comment or new patch set. 00:19:58 i really just took one of the existing dashboards and started hacking at it. it needs more work. 00:21:03 well, it's a nice start =) 00:21:44 so "Add generic name of each project for terms" got a +1 on Jul 7 12:23 PM 00:22:18 from the definition on age there this is starting to make sense 00:22:23 i'm assuming that counts as a comment 00:22:29 ya 00:22:56 i wonder if the gerrit machines are using utc time for these calcs? 00:23:03 so a review has to be quiet for 2 days before it can be considered for freeze 00:23:29 can we say quiet for 2 days *and* has X many +1/2s ? 00:25:14 hmmm...looking at https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html#labels 00:25:52 i think the answer is no 00:26:13 ah well 00:27:12 i guess i'm okay with the "has to be quiet for 2 days" thing too. 00:27:24 it's not exactly what's in http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/process.html but it's not so far off either. 00:27:39 fair 00:30:46 i don't think "Frozen but needs feedback" is working right either. 00:31:04 "Should not return server-side tracebacks" should be in there 00:32:16 hmm, i see that and 5xx in there 00:33:00 well 5xx does have that one -1 00:33:16 which is what i intended to capture with 00:33:17 query = status:open (label:Code-Review=-2 AND label:Code-Review=-1) 00:33:32 right, but so does the other one 00:33:41 ya... 00:34:41 oh wait "Should not return server-side tracebacks" appears in both 00:35:19 yea 00:36:22 ah i understand now. 00:36:25 got the fix too. 00:36:37 [section "Frozen"] 00:36:38 query = status:open (label:Code-Review=-2 AND NOT label:Code-Review=-1) 00:36:56 lol, was just wondering.. "AND NOT" 00:37:18 okay. i'll update it. 00:37:35 elmiko: can you give the dashboard a thorough look? 00:37:45 yep 00:37:48 thx 00:38:05 #action elmiko to give the dashboard a thorough review 00:38:29 thanks for chatting through that with me. 00:38:39 np =) 00:38:41 #topic [Solum] Request for feedback on new API resource 00:39:01 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-June/067811.html 00:39:24 i keep back burnering this request for our advice/help :( 00:39:30 doh! 00:41:04 so they've got some of their api in they spec linked to there 00:41:10 #link https://github.com/stackforge/solum-specs/blob/master/specs/liberty/app-resource.rst 00:41:48 care to take a minute to look? 00:42:01 yea, looking now. this is kinda in-depth 00:43:52 not sure i dig the .../workflows endpoint, but then i'm more on jaypipe's side of things with tasks as resources 00:44:36 on a first pass it seems reasonable though (workflows aside) 00:44:42 not there yet... 00:45:36 and i'm not sure about the PATCH call, but then i'm not super familiar with the semantics around PATCH 00:45:45 i noticed that too 00:45:56 have a look at this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/183945/5/guidelines/http.rst 00:46:20 lol, i knew that sounded familiar 00:46:45 you know, the workflows thing might be okay. 00:46:55 it looked like rpc to me at first too 00:47:09 but check out "wf_id": 34 00:47:24 it seems to be creating a distinct resource 00:47:53 yep 00:47:54 GET /apps/94cb7b89-0de8-492b-bf54-05ae96c9bd0e/workflows/37 00:48:16 ok, that makes a little more sense 00:48:26 missed that part 00:49:31 okay. i'll reply on the ml with a couple of things. 00:49:36 cool 00:49:46 in general, seems sensible 00:49:50 i think so 00:49:52 #topic vacation 00:50:02 i'm going on vacation :) 00:50:09 yay \o/ 00:50:18 hope its somewhere fun =) 00:50:48 first headed back to canada to see friends and family and then to cancun for my brother's wedding. 00:50:58 ooh, nice 00:51:11 i'm effectively out until august 6th 00:51:30 (i'll be back for less than a week in the middle of that) 00:51:37 k, we'll keep the ship tidy in your absence ;) 00:51:47 how did you know that was my next question? 00:51:51 haha 00:52:08 you are a gentleman and a scholar. 00:52:17 * elmiko tips fedora 00:52:19 too kind sir 00:52:22 :D 00:52:32 #action elmiko to keep the ship tidy :) 00:52:36 LOL 00:52:51 #topic guidelines 00:53:11 Adding 5xx guidance, could use some clarification about issues raised on review #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/183698/ 00:53:25 i think we might need to punt on this till more folks are around, not sure 00:53:33 i'd like some thoughts on the 501 comments 00:54:00 also, the idea of us duplicating information about 5xx codes 00:55:39 "application code" is a bit ambiguous but yes. 00:55:49 i still think this is an important guideline 00:55:53 yea, i'm gonna change that per Jonh's suggestions 00:55:58 John 00:56:08 johan 00:56:15 hehe 00:56:26 anything to chat about? 00:56:30 alex_xu? 00:56:34 would be interesting to get api wg feedback on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192422/3/specs/backlog/policy-by-url.rst (see line 35) 00:56:49 i'd really like some feedback on that barbican apiimpact linked 00:57:13 looks like an abomination to me, but the submitter likes it 00:57:40 yea, that URI is a mouthful 00:58:01 everyone's child is beautiful in their own eyes :) 00:58:35 fwiw i think this is a useful feature 00:58:40 the question is the use of query parameters on a PUT 00:58:55 maybe there's already API guidelines 00:58:55 at this point it's probably best to throw those out on #openstack-api tomorrow and see if we can get more eyes on them 00:58:59 yea, not sure about that 00:59:29 i suggested something similar on a POST call for that barbican spec 00:59:55 i don't see the issue with adding a query parameter though, but i might just be missing something 01:00:18 time 01:00:24 #endmeeting