17:00:05 #startmeeting cinder-nova-api-changes 17:00:05 Meeting started Mon Jun 27 17:00:05 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ildikov. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:07 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:09 The meeting name has been set to 'cinder_nova_api_changes' 17:00:18 scottda ildikov DuncanT ameade cFouts johnthetubaguy jaypipes takashin alaski e0ne jgriffith tbarron andrearosa hemna erlon mriedem gouthamr ebalduf patrickeast smcginnis diablo_rojo gsilvis 17:00:37 hi 17:00:41 hi 17:00:52 hi :) 17:01:06 o/ 17:01:25 o/ 17:02:02 it seems hemna is on vacation, so I guess we can start 17:02:24 I did not really modify the agenda on the etherpad #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-nova-api-changes 17:02:39 as we still have the refactor and the testing as the two major items 17:02:50 jgriffith: do you have any updates? 17:03:20 ildikov: just sorting through some things on the tempest code. I'd really appreciate some feedback on the cinder side, and merge if we're moving forward 17:03:30 ildikov: of course, asking for help with unit tests :) 17:03:39 ildikov: and versioning mess 17:03:51 jgriffith: O 17:03:56 jgriffith: unit test in Nova or Cinder or both? :) 17:03:57 o/ 17:04:04 cinder to start 17:04:05 I'll add some code for microversioning to your patches. 17:04:20 Assuming that's the "versioning mess" 17:04:21 ie if folks want to speed things up do follow ups 17:04:28 on the Cinder side 17:04:30 jgriffith: ok, we can sync up after the meeting on that so we don't overwrite each other's changes 17:05:21 scottda: yeah, that's the one and I think you're the best to teach all of us here on how to do that properly, so thanks much in advance 17:05:41 ildikov: BTW, you appear to be correct about the cross project changes 17:05:56 ildikov: for some reason I thought that just *worked* now 17:05:59 ildikov: I'll work on the Cinder side. Eventually we need to figure out the Nova code to use Cinder microversions. This will be the first time for that. 17:06:13 jgriffith: the client code you mean? 17:06:22 ildikov: yes 17:06:45 although... maybe there's something else still wrong. Running tempest full locally again 17:07:36 jgriffith: Devstack did not seem to use the source for clients to install 17:07:56 ildikov: right, I believe the default is pip only 17:07:57 anywho... 17:07:59 Do you need to use SOURCE_FROM_GIT or whatever that config is? 17:08:16 smcginnis: yeah, but I can't tell gate to do that :) 17:08:23 smcginnis: that's what I do locally 17:08:34 jgriffith: Yeah, that does make it a bit tricky then! 17:08:49 smcginnis: just making sure I didn't miss something, but when I ran locally it all looked "ok" 17:09:07 granted I only ran "volumes" 17:09:17 smcginnis: right, I know I saw that somewhere, thanks for reminding :) 17:09:32 So we need a client released with the changes before we can actual implement the support for it. 17:09:43 you should be able to test the client changes + the nova changes 17:09:47 with some throw away patch 17:09:55 which would probably be a devstack change 17:10:06 GIT_BRANCH for cinderclient would be the ref of the cinderclient change probably 17:10:19 and the devstack change would depend on the nova change, which depends on the cinderclient change 17:10:27 the devstack DNM would actually depend on nova and cinder changes both 17:10:31 mriedem: yeah, so like create a job specifically for this effort? 17:10:34 mriedem: Oh, that's so crazy it might actually work. :) 17:10:39 jgriffith: not a job, just a throw away default config 17:10:47 smcginnis: we do it frequently 17:10:52 smcginnis: lol :) 17:10:59 jgriffith: Just change SOURCE_FROM_GIT=blah in devstack 17:11:00 mriedem: hmm... ok, I'll have to pick your brain (or someones) on how to set that up 17:11:01 Makes sense. 17:11:09 scottda was doing something similar the other day 17:11:19 Yeah, thanks mriedem that worked great 17:11:20 mriedem: scottda ok, perfect 17:13:25 cool, this will make life a bit easier from early testing perspective, thanks 17:14:57 jgriffith and/or scottda will you set this up? 17:15:20 ildikov: I'll work with scottda after the meeting if he's got time? 17:15:28 yes, I've time 17:15:41 jgriffith: cool, tnx 17:16:52 jgriffith: do you have more work items for the Cinder side things we would need to find assignees for? 17:17:34 ildikov: I can have a look today, micro-versions and unit tests are the two items on my list 17:17:58 yeah, let me quickly action those 17:18:23 #action ildikov to work on unit tests for the Cinder side changes 17:18:48 #action scottda to put together microversioning for the Cinder side changes 17:18:53 cool 17:19:33 #action jgriffith scottda to upload a temporary fix for having the client code used by Devstack on the gate 17:20:06 ok, I think we have the bigger items covered and we can look into a few more after meeting/during the week 17:20:28 jgriffith: anything more for the refactor? 17:23:36 ok, we can move to the testing side 17:23:44 scottda: any updates? 17:24:00 I got a review from mriedem on the tempest tests... 17:24:04 thanks for that. 17:24:12 I've replied and posted a new PS 17:24:31 othewise, I've something broken in my job naming...I'll have a look at that next 17:25:08 This is a dependency: 17:25:09 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/325895/ 17:25:21 That could use a review, if anyone is up for it. 17:25:55 scottda: mtreinish's comments weren't addressed 17:26:07 i.e. why are we parsing this rather than just passing it through to tempest.conf 17:26:23 you could probably also point out in the review that you're dependent on it 17:26:35 mriedem: OK. I hoped the author of the patch would answer that. 17:26:39 and have a change up to project-config for a multi-backend job 17:26:47 I thought I did say that in the review... 17:26:50 scottda: if you depend on it, i wouldn't count on others :) 17:27:52 OK, well, I'll put it in my queue to deal with that. 17:28:55 mriedem: I've this in project-config: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330678/ 17:29:04 scottda: you metioned it, maybe it wasn't direct enough :) 17:29:48 ildikov: I guess so. 17:30:24 So, I'll circle around on all those patches and get some changes up to address comments, etc. 17:30:37 scottda: more -1 on the project-config change :) 17:31:49 easy stuff 17:32:07 mriedem: I cannot blink as fast as you can comment on and -1 patches :) 17:33:41 haha mriedem is fast indeed 17:33:44 scottda: mriedem: IIRC you had a quite long chat around these Tempest and related patches last time. Is there anything remaining we would need to sort out? 17:33:59 i haven't gone back to review the tempest change yet 17:34:23 yeah, I need feedback from mriedem first.... 17:36:08 ok, then let's continue that chat in the review 17:37:01 #action mriedem to check on scottda's tempest change, #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/326681 17:37:25 scottda: anything else to this topic? 17:37:54 no, I'm good 17:38:06 scottda: cool, thanks for the updates 17:38:47 as the multi-attach work pretty much depends on the Cinder refactor I made only small changes to code for now 17:39:40 like removing some checks in the block_device code etc. 17:40:09 we will only enable multi-attach in Nova for the new code path that uses the new API calls in Cinder 17:40:41 I will also look into the version check code that will be needed on the Nova side as it can be implemented now and then updated later 17:41:56 mriedem: if/when we can get the gate fixed and see the whole flow hopefully working, will there be any reasonable chance to get some review attention this in Nova? 17:42:45 i haven't gone back over john's changes in nova since last week 17:43:05 we're crunching for non-priority FF this thursday so i think people are pushing on things that are closer to making that date 17:43:16 i know i have been 17:43:53 mriedem: the patch is pretty small now, if the base direction looks good to you, then we can work on the micro-version code and ask you to check when the Nova changes is adapted to that 17:44:11 ok 17:44:57 mriedem: I know, but I would not want to actually block the refactor work for that long if there's a chance 17:45:46 so is the question if we're going to land the new cinder api + client + nova changes to use it by thursday? 17:46:42 because i don't think ^ is going to happen 17:46:48 it does not seem realistic until this Thursday 17:47:20 honestly i think a win for newton is getting the new cinder APIs available and tested 17:47:32 and then building on using those in nova in ocata 17:47:45 with the nova dev happening in newton 17:47:53 so we can flush out bugs 17:48:21 cinder APis in newton i mean, assuming those can get in by newton FF on 9/2 17:48:27 i don't know what cinder does about schedules 17:48:51 we still needs some eyes on the Nova side changes as I'm doing my best, but I'm not an expert yet 17:49:02 yeah i realize 17:49:17 i will try to this week, just lots of other people hammering me for things to get in by thursday 17:49:19 thanks for confirming :) 17:50:13 can you check on things after this week as well? 17:51:39 yeah 17:51:49 I just would like to clarify how we can continue after the freeze 17:52:00 it would be good to have some decent idea of the path forward by the nova midcycle 17:52:11 I don't want to argue or anything 17:52:27 yeah, I just wanted ask when you have it 17:52:29 ? 17:52:30 mriedem: Oh yeah, we should probably try to schedule a cinder-nova midcycle link again. 17:52:32 at the midcycle i'd basically like to say, this is the plan, these are the steps to get us there, and this is what's going ot happen in newton 17:52:42 7/19-7/21 17:52:47 mriedem: +1 17:53:07 smcginnis: mriedem: we have the two mid-cycles at the same time again, right? 17:53:15 ildikov: Yes 17:53:24 scottda: tnx :) 17:53:34 yeah cinder is in ft collins 17:53:39 nova is in hillsboro 17:54:00 mriedem: ildikov I'm fine with focusing on merging cinder side FWIW 17:54:41 jgriffith: yeap, it would be great if that can happen in Newton 17:55:03 jgriffith: cinder just has a longer lead time since you have until 9/2 i think 17:55:06 jgriffith: +1 17:55:21 jgriffith: I would like to still start to sort things out on the Nova side as well, so we don't waste too much time on discussions in Ocata 17:55:46 right i think we definitely want to see the nova parts working in the POC in newton 17:55:51 ildikov: don't get me wrong, I'll still submit, even if it sits and just gets rebased for a few months :) 17:55:52 and tested 17:55:58 smcginnis: I like the Hangouts idea for the mid-cycle as well 17:56:03 mriedem: +1 17:56:27 jgriffith: I'm experienced in that, so you can count me in ;) 17:56:38 ildikov: :) 17:56:38 mriedem: +1 17:57:41 #action Cinder team + ildikov to figure out the plan with steps and tasks for Newton until the mid-cycle 17:58:18 #action mriedem + johnthetubaguy to help out on the Nova side if needed 17:58:27 BTW, I'm on vacation next week. 17:58:45 #action ildikov + smcginnis to set up a Hangouts call for the mid-cycle 17:58:55 scottda: ok, thanks for the info! 17:59:22 scottda: I'll ping you on Friday for a few updates, if that works 17:59:48 ildikov: Sure. Not too late in the MountainDaylight TZ, please :) 18:00:09 scottda: deal :) 18:00:22 is there anything else for today? 18:01:08 ok, if no, then thanks everyone! 18:01:16 bye 18:01:32 have a nice day/afternoon :) 18:01:40 #endmeeting