20:02:01 #startmeeting heat 20:02:02 Meeting started Wed Sep 10 20:02:01 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is zaneb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:02:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:02:06 The meeting name has been set to 'heat' 20:02:23 o/ 20:02:24 #topic roll call 20:02:28 hi 20:02:30 \o 20:02:32 Hi all 20:02:33 Hi 20:02:43 does anybody want to chair this week? 20:02:59 hi 20:02:59 I have a cold & definitely not feeling it right now 20:03:24 hi 20:03:55 one day I will go to a wiki page and not have to log in *again* 20:03:58 one day. 20:04:12 single sign on: where you sign on. Every. Single. Time. 20:04:12 I think there is a setting for that 20:04:38 stevebaker: excuse me while I go look for that right now 20:04:43 ryansb: #winning 20:05:55 ok, I can chair 20:06:02 #topic Review action items from last meeting 20:06:07 #chair stevebaker 20:06:08 Current chairs: stevebaker zaneb 20:06:10 cheers 20:06:31 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/heat/2014/heat.2014-09-03-12.03.html 20:06:34 none! 20:06:41 slackers 20:07:18 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/HeatAgenda#Agenda_.282014-09-10_2000_UTC.29 20:07:34 #topic Adding items to the agenda 20:07:40 anythunk to add? 20:07:53 I wanted us all to sync on FFE's for Juno 20:07:54 I guess a FFE update would be in order 20:08:38 already added that 20:08:47 sneaky 20:10:17 #topic Critical issues 20:10:52 I don't see any burning issues in https://bugs.launchpad.net/heat 20:11:08 nothing on fire, only smouldering 20:12:29 \o/ 20:12:42 #topic FFE status 20:12:57 so anything left in juno-rc1 has an FFE 20:13:05 #link https://launchpad.net/heat/+milestone/juno-rc1 20:13:34 pas-ha: I bumped your update-cancel one to next, sorry 20:13:52 np, I was indeed quite late 20:14:00 the Low priority ones need to be in this week to make it 20:14:09 the rest have until early next week 20:14:24 I'm pretty sure we are very close to landing almost all of them 20:14:36 I was looking at one of asalkelds patches earlier: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103484/ 20:14:39 2 blueprints that I recall being deferred are https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/implement-autoscalinggroup-availabilityzones and ... 20:14:43 although I'd reaaly like you to check it, as I've ended up with a way to send arbitrary "signals" into a running thread 20:15:03 zaneb: I noticed you'd +2'd it recently, and I nearly approved it, then realized the BP wasn't targetted correctly 20:15:10 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/oslo-i18n 20:15:22 since we've not discussed FFE's on the list, I wasn't really sure (it's not targetted to RC1) 20:15:37 shardy: what are stevebore-plugins anyway 20:16:14 shardy and I are stevebores 20:16:23 lol :) 20:16:29 TBH I don't even regard that as blueprint-worthy. it's just a refactoring. I would really like that patch in though 20:16:41 less excited about the rest of the series ;) 20:16:52 does anyone have strong feelings either way about implement-autoscalinggroup-availabilityzones? I commented the following on the bp 20:16:53 stevebaker: I think the spec and the change need some more review attention before this can land. I'm going to defer to Kilo. If you'd like to apply for a FFE then mail openstack-dev so we can discuss. The intention is to refactor the auto scaling unit tests during juno-rc1 so that it is less painful to add changes like this and blueprint decouple-nested. 20:16:57 zaneb: Ok, maybe we just get Angus to remove the typo commit tag then ;) 20:17:16 meh, just ship it 20:17:39 honestly a url as a commit message body doesn't seem the best either 20:17:56 but i'm not gonna -1 on that... 20:18:04 stevebaker: I feel we are way late to merge implement-autoscalinggroup-availabilityzones 20:18:37 I wish it were otherwise, but can not disagree 20:18:50 the patch still needed a lot of work when I last saw it a week and a half ago 20:18:58 +1, lets defer and get in into early kilo 20:19:04 ++ 20:19:16 Can we plead for code review for the patches on FFE? :) 20:19:35 tango: yes, I think that's only fair ;) 20:19:40 tango, absolutely 20:19:44 And all the bugs targetted to RC1 which are in-progress, please :) 20:20:04 #action all to focus review attention to the 3 remaining blueprints on https://launchpad.net/heat/+milestone/juno-rc1 20:21:03 anything else on FFE? 20:21:23 pas-ha: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88548/ needs a comment from you 20:22:11 (that is all, carry on) 20:22:13 yep, seen that, will implement "selective" update tomorrow, less disruptive going it is to be 20:22:27 * pas-ha yoda off 20:22:43 #topic Integration tests 20:22:45 pas-ha: cool, a comment to that effect will help reviewers :) 20:23:20 stevebaker: This is interesting, I thought there was consensus re splitting stuff out of tempest, only then there wasn't based on ML discussions 20:23:36 stevebaker: do we have a clear way forward now? 20:25:18 shardy: damn the torpedoes? 20:26:33 zaneb: Ha, +1 on that ;) 20:26:45 There is a desire for integration tests to all be in one place and a need for heat integration tests to be controlled by heat developers. This is one thing which needs to be resolved. 20:26:45 My last email on that thread proposed what I think we should do, which is 20:27:15 While there is some truth to the communication on both sides thing, I hounded folks for reviews for months before finally completely losing the will to live re tempest 20:27:30 write tests first. worry about where they should live later 20:27:35 heat_integrationtests is where integration tests are written and incubated. Minimal tests which just test integration with other openstack components get duplicated into tempest and get run on the integrated gate 20:27:57 shardy: did you know they had a section of their meeting dedicated to us? I had no idea 20:28:20 complex tests in heat_integrationtests eventually get full API mocking and get moved to a yet-to-be-created heat_functionaltests 20:28:28 zaneb: me neither, nobody ever mentioned it 20:28:39 weird 20:28:47 new features don't land unless they at very least have something in heat_integrationtests 20:28:57 mtreinish, are you about by any chance? 20:29:43 so personally I don't see any blockers to continue reviewing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/110496/ etc while we figure all this out 20:29:44 stevebaker: that may be a little excessive, depending on how you define 'feature' 20:29:57 zaneb, well, I mean new resources 20:30:14 ah, ok 20:30:46 stevebaker: yes, what's up? 20:31:19 mtreinish, we're just discussing heat integration tests, functional tests, and tempest 20:32:23 mtreinish, did you see my last email on that thread? I've suggested heat_integrationtests is where integration tests are written and incubated. Minimal tests which just test integration with other openstack components get duplicated into tempest and get run on the integrated gate 20:33:15 stevebaker: FWIW, I think the most urgent thing is real coverage of actual scenarios, e.g integration between resources and several underlying services 20:33:37 e.g scenario tests where we've failed to get any real traction in tempest 20:33:53 stevebaker: that sounds fine, I think the criteria for what gets run as part of tempest will evolve over time 20:34:07 because we have such limited coverage right now, it's hard to know what will be a good fit 20:34:10 The functional tests for resources thing sounds like a nice-to-have, but mostly should be covered by unit tests (I mean "unit") atm 20:34:35 but starting with minimal tests for basic integration is a good place to start 20:36:11 as soon as the first change in https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/heat+branch:master+topic:bp/functional-tests,n,z lands I'll flatten the others in the series so they depend on master 20:36:41 stevebaker: are we waiting on any non-heat patches to make us actually gate on these? 20:36:48 stevebaker: I also liked the comment at the end about metric based graduation. That's something I've been working on, getting longer term per test data out of the gate. 20:40:33 shardy, I just need an approve on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/116533/ from someone awesome like clarkb 20:40:33 that will probably do for now, any other comments on integration tests? 20:40:33 #topic Open discussion 20:40:46 I need to do the school run, so my need to leave y'all to it 20:41:03 \o thanks stevebaker 20:41:24 \o stevebaker 20:41:31 Just running unittests and seeing this "instance_user" option warning. Should we have already removed it? 20:41:59 that warning should be mocked out 20:42:25 stevebaker, not since recently again 20:42:28 But yes, we probably should given that the warning says to be removed in Juno 20:42:49 shadower is probably not around, but I think he added that warning 20:43:10 I'll check with him tomorrow and post a patch removing the option if there's no objections? 20:46:42 ok, if nobody has other business, I'm going to wrap it up 20:50:37 #endmeeting heat