15:00:44 #startmeeting kuryr 15:00:45 Meeting started Mon Dec 7 15:00:44 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is apuimedo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:46 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:49 The meeting name has been set to 'kuryr' 15:00:56 Hello kuryrs! 15:00:57 Hello 15:00:59 o/ 15:01:07 welcome to another weekly meeting 15:01:13 who's here for the show? 15:01:24 hi carl_baldwin :) 15:02:02 gsagie: hi 15:02:28 hi 15:03:20 I unfortunately have to leave in 10-15 minutes but will catch up from the log 15:04:10 #info gsagie fawadkhaliq, banix and apuimedo present 15:04:18 thanks all for joining 15:04:27 we've seen quite a bit of cleanups this week 15:04:33 and some new committers 15:04:36 :-) 15:04:41 #topic binding 15:04:51 banix: since you have to go early 15:05:00 you have the floor 15:05:19 apuimedo: thanks. I think the basic OVS is there and working; should get merged soon. 15:05:34 Hello raofei! :) 15:05:41 we may need some rework in particular wrt use of vif_type 15:06:09 hi! sorry for being late 15:06:20 I believe the vif_type can be the same for different plugs, for example ovs and hybrid_ovs 15:06:28 hi irenab 15:06:37 but I will double check and see how we can deal with that 15:06:41 banix: absolutely 15:06:52 agreed banix . Looks good to me 15:07:21 that’s all on binding (well, plug/unplug :) ) 15:07:24 I just did +2 15:07:43 #info https://review.openstack.org/#/c/253285/ is ready for a final round of reviews and merging 15:07:45 :-) 15:07:55 #topic configuration 15:08:01 i think jenkins may fail on pep8 i am afraid 15:08:12 keep your +2s coming if i respin. thanks 15:08:22 configuration also seems ready 15:08:38 had to do a couple of rebase; hopefully can get it merged today 15:08:41 banix: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/251532/ already has the change for pep8? 15:09:01 yes 15:09:30 good 15:09:32 but i see one of my two patches failing on pep8 i think it is the OVS one but I will chase that in couple of hours 15:09:42 very well 15:09:45 yeah configuration should be good to merge, just small pep8 error 15:10:16 gsagie: yes, already fixed that in the latest patch 15:10:16 #info https://review.openstack.org/#/c/251532/ is ready for a final round & merging 15:10:42 #action get configuration management merged today 15:11:11 #topic existing networks reuse 15:11:27 tfukushima pushed the spec today 15:11:35 did anybody have the chance to review it already? 15:11:50 I see irena did 15:11:53 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/254005/ 15:12:08 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/kuryr/+spec/existing-neutron-network 15:12:14 #action all to review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/254005/ 15:12:29 I think both of my patches are ok. the pep8 error was from a different patch. 15:12:32 #link https://gist.github.com/tfukushima/e7a481b71ef817ec11a1 15:12:35 yeah we need to review some patches from Vikas as well 15:12:38 apuimedo: few chapters are more discussion than spec. 15:12:39 banix: good to know 15:12:59 they are starting to pile up 15:13:04 gsagie: agreed 15:13:05 i will spend tommorow doing reviews 15:13:15 #topic ipam 15:13:39 gsagie: irenab: how closely have you followed it? I couldn't check ipam since last wednesday 15:13:56 I understand now they are split into more consumable pieces 15:14:16 apuimedo: havent looked at it close enough, but plan to review it all tommorow 15:14:20 apuimedo: will have to review it again, did some cycles before 15:14:44 #action all to review the IPAM patches 15:14:55 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/252848/ 15:15:02 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/252835/ 15:15:07 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/252835/ 15:15:26 apuimedo: ack 15:15:28 anything more about ipam? 15:15:34 btw, i do see that OVS plug/unplug has no unbinding implemented 15:15:43 although we are all missing an up to date view on the state :P 15:16:22 heh, that's true gsagie 15:16:24 :O 15:16:26 :O 15:16:28 :O 15:16:30 How did I miss it 15:16:35 lets merge it and i will add another patch to fix it 15:16:37 must be how much I really want this in 15:16:43 agreed 15:16:48 gsagie: please, do the honors 15:17:07 done 15:17:07 #topic testing 15:17:16 gsagie: you have the floor 15:17:55 I have started playing with docker-py which seems to have most of what we need, i still need to check how exacly to run pings from the container to test connectivity but from the look it should support it 15:18:05 i do have some strange problem with docker but hopefully a restart will fix it 15:19:07 I am trying to figure out if we can at first stage add these functional tests to the gate, and in a next step add them to Rally. i have some understanding how Rally works. dont think there will be any problem adding Kuryr stuff to it 15:19:45 gsagie: I'm okay with a multi stage appraoch 15:19:50 so at this point i am mostly going to start creating functional tests that uses Neutron client and the docker client (like creating networks, creating containers and checking everything is added in Neutron correctly) 15:19:56 #info gsagie proposes adding functional tests to the gate 15:20:29 #info gsagie proposes to work in parallel in adding tests to rally 15:20:29 then we might also want to run these tests with multiple Neutron plugins 15:20:39 apuimedo: #action.. 15:20:52 gsagie: are we adding Kuryr to Rally or Rally plugin to Kuryr? 15:20:53 ohhh yeah its info :) 15:20:54 gsagie: action after discussion :P 15:20:54 sorry 15:21:13 fawadkhaliq: we should try for a plugin approach if it is feasible 15:21:19 do you have experience with it, fawadkhaliq ? 15:21:23 +1 15:21:23 fawadkhaliq : we can do both 15:21:38 gsagie: what is multiple plugins? 15:21:43 i think it will be better to manage it inside Kuryr, as long as its ok with the Rally people 15:21:51 irenab: Neutron backends.. 15:21:54 we can do both. both should work. Plugin would be better. 15:21:59 gsagie: ml2? 15:22:08 irenab: like midonet, OVS ... 15:22:15 perhaps we should check with Rally team what's recommended? I can take that up? 15:22:18 I agree that plugin should be better 15:22:23 two neutrons or one neutron with multiple backends? 15:22:45 irenab: just few jobs, one for each backend, but its just a proposal to look in the future.. 15:22:48 #action gsagie to go to the ml so we can discuss the topic with rally people 15:23:09 gsagie: any bug/bp you track the work for testing? 15:23:12 okie, will present the question 15:23:21 irenab: not yet, will add 15:23:46 cool 15:23:52 thanks gsagie 15:24:05 I think we can manage it with bugs, or do you prefer a bp? 15:24:05 gsagie: I woud suggest to add basic infra for tests, so more tests can be pushed in parallel 15:24:20 irenab: +1 15:24:21 irenab: thanks, thats the goal 15:24:31 gsagie: bugs for requesting and defining tests, bp for the 15:24:34 building the base class 15:24:42 rally plugin proposal 15:24:48 gsagie: no preference, just need some place to raise general comments, not patch specific 15:24:59 apuimedo, irenab: ok 15:25:24 apuimedo: +1 15:26:16 #info test case requests on lp bugs 15:26:36 #acion gsagie to make a bp about testing 15:26:48 (not about specific tests) 15:26:56 anything else about testing? 15:27:00 not from me 15:27:06 nope 15:27:50 cool 15:27:57 #topic capabilities 15:28:54 ajo was checking that? 15:28:59 he is not here 15:29:10 #action apuimedo to create a proposal for the launcher and capabilities solution 15:29:16 apuimedo: can you please explain what it is about? 15:29:19 gsagie: ajo is only checking it for neutron 15:29:27 with the launcher I passed him 15:29:36 neutron agents, sorry 15:29:39 basically 15:29:48 the thing is 15:29:54 there is a launcher coded in C 15:30:03 that we set with CAP_NET_ADMIN 15:30:23 so that all our operations that require CAP_NET_ADMIN can be performed 15:30:37 without us needing to run as root, nor sudo, nor rootwraps 15:30:57 and not a privileged daemon 15:31:00 by us you mean kuryr inoked command? 15:31:06 yes 15:31:34 the problem with that is that when we do execve (or rather Python does) 15:32:06 it may present some problems with the capabilities that arrive to the binding shell scripts 15:32:09 gotta check 15:32:57 #action apuimedo to check what happens with binding scripts 15:33:03 shell is particularly problematic 15:33:41 any other question? 15:33:44 I was trying to see if there is any progress on os vif, but seems no code for review yet. 15:34:25 I think we can consider this for later phase and probably see if the approach we choose will work for os vif 15:34:46 yup 15:35:11 #topic open discussion 15:35:18 anybody else with another topic? 15:35:22 not me 15:35:46 mope 15:35:50 nope nothing 15:36:08 no 15:36:11 okay then 15:36:15 thanks everyone! and Happy Hannukah irenab ;) 15:36:27 gsagie: same same :-) 15:36:30 Happy Hannukah! 15:36:41 happy hannukah 15:36:47 thanks guys 15:36:51 and thanks all for joining 15:36:53 #endmeeting