16:02:02 #startmeeting Mistral 16:02:03 Meeting started Mon Jul 18 16:02:02 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rakhmerov. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:02:04 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:02:07 The meeting name has been set to 'mistral' 16:02:13 o/ 16:02:15 hi 16:02:22 o/ 16:02:32 o/ 16:02:40 o/ 16:02:47 hi guys 16:02:50 hi 16:03:03 ok, let's start our meeting 16:03:22 #topic Current status (progress, issues, plans) 16:04:42 my status: set up the new repo "mistral-lib", it's now ready for contribution, restructured mistral-extra (all CI jobs are currently disabled), reviewed a bunch of patches 16:05:01 about to start working for better support of subworkflows on API 16:05:09 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mistral/+spec/mistral-task-subexecutions-endpoint 16:05:12 actually started 16:05:17 planning to finish tomorrow 16:05:24 hi 16:05:39 and want to discuss our further work on actions api 16:05:46 hparekh_: hi, welcome 16:05:55 My status: Still working on adding param 'safe-rerun' to tasks. Nearly ended, but requiers last tests before submitting patchset 16:05:56 any updates from you guys? 16:06:14 ddeja: I thought all patches are on review, no? 16:06:21 only testing left? 16:06:21 my status: reviewed patches and started working on mistral ssl support. will post patches soon 16:06:36 hparekh_: great! 16:06:44 rakhmerov: well, these patches are not using 'redelivered' flag 16:06:48 it's really needed by some of our users 16:07:03 ddeja: oooh, right, you told me (now I remember) 16:07:06 my status: I opened this bug that was found in my company, and I plan to fix it. 16:07:11 https://bugs.launchpad.net/mistral/+bug/1603941 16:07:11 Launchpad bug 1603941 in Mistral "create workflow fails on data too long for column definition" [High,Confirmed] - Assigned to Michal Gershenzon (michal-gershenzon) 16:07:21 and new ones will change all the logic, so there is no need to work on them :) 16:07:24 mgershen: yeah, it's a bad bug 16:07:27 (on old ones) 16:07:40 ddeja: ok, I see 16:09:41 ok, any other updates? 16:09:42 rakhmerov: yup, but I think at least the fix is easy 16:10:04 yes, we also need to generate a migration 16:10:09 i haven't had a chance to circle back on the client caching patch, but plan on getting back to it this week. 16:10:16 rbrady, jpeeler? 16:10:37 rakhmerov: would it be useful to see the patch for third party consumers? 16:11:22 rakhmerov: yes, I will make sure to do so. 16:12:22 jpeeler: what patch do you mean? 16:12:26 sorry 16:12:31 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/341717/ 16:13:00 there's another i've yet to show. i'll just post it later and you can comment 16:13:22 oh, ok 16:13:39 I just didn't understand what you meant about 3rd party consumers 16:13:56 i mean like custom actions for tripleo 16:14:06 rakhmerov: saw the initial mistral-lib repo after it landed, added a patch for name change. planning on adding some patches this week wrt to spec features 16:14:23 rbrady: that renaming patch has landed 16:14:26 ok 16:14:28 great 16:14:56 jpeeler: on that caching thing, I'm probably out of context right now but I'll look at it again tomorrow 16:15:14 ok! 16:15:52 jpeeler: if I remember correctly, I mostly liked the patch. My comments were about reducing duplication and some minor stuff 16:16:01 yep 16:16:04 ok :) 16:16:17 and I see that you commented something back which I didn't see ) 16:16:23 we'll look at it 16:16:46 ok, thanks to everyone, let's move forward to the main topic 16:17:04 #topic Actions API 16:17:28 so before we start, these are the questions that I'd like to have answered: 16:17:34 1. Who will take what? 16:17:54 2. Deprecation mechanism (and how to provide it) 16:18:02 3. Is it feasible to squeeze into N-3? 16:18:17 so, let's start with 1 16:18:58 repos are now set up, and I'd like to delegate this work to someone else who's willing to help 16:19:11 and maybe even split it into parallel items 16:19:24 so, any brave ones? :) 16:19:57 work items can be seen in the spec: https://github.com/openstack/mistral-specs/blob/master/specs/newton/approved/mistral-custom-actions-api.rst 16:20:00 in the end 16:20:00 rahkmerov: I'll be happy to work on the types, base and utils 16:20:24 rbrady: great, so what goes into mistral-lib, right? 16:20:26 rakhmerov: can we use sub-blueprints kind of thing to track this work ? 16:20:41 hparekh_: yes, sure, great idea 16:21:05 #action rakhmerov: file BPs for individual work items of Custom Actions API 16:21:24 ok, rbrady takes mistral-lib itself 16:21:49 rahkmerov: there is still the security module 16:21:50 #action rakhmerov: assign mistral-lib work to Ryan Brady (rbrady) 16:21:58 yes 16:22:40 rbrady: what about that module? 16:22:45 rbrady I would like to help in this work please let me know if any. 16:22:52 rakhmerov: As discussed I will take up the yaql work 16:23:10 hparekh_: yes, please. Did you create a BP? 16:23:23 rakhmerov: no 16:23:34 rahkmerov: the security module might need some planning in a blueprint and discussion 16:23:42 #action hparekh_: create a BP for YAQL functions API 16:24:22 rbrady: ok, can you start with this too? At least some initial problem statement, ideas 16:24:36 rahkmerov: yes 16:24:41 i can help with the security module if needed 16:24:45 rbrady: because you probably know better than I do (for example) 16:24:52 jpeeler: ok 16:25:16 #action rbrady, jpeeler: start with initial proposal on security module for Actions API 16:26:16 so, maybe the only thing for now that we need to mention too is changes in engine and executor 16:26:24 there are two work items for this 16:26:43 I think moving OpenStack actions into mistral-extra is a little bit early to discuss 16:26:54 and it's a whole separate big topic 16:27:07 so, changes in engine and executor 16:27:27 as far as executor, I think that will be pretty simple (at least it seems so) 16:27:59 in engine it's more tricky probably 16:28:16 anyway, both engine and executor will depend on mistral-lib 16:29:01 one important requirement is to provide backward compatibility for at least next cycle (will it be Q cycle, right?) 16:29:23 (Ocata cycle is next cycle) 16:29:31 ok 16:29:39 like, for example, actions are now allowed to return instances of mistral.workflow.utils.Result 16:29:49 this is pair 16:30:01 we'll need to move it to mistral-lib 16:30:13 but we'll have to support both for a while 16:30:46 and spread deprecation notices all over the code and (most importantly) documentation 16:31:32 same with base Action class and other stuff 16:32:01 maybe it's not something special to have it as a separate subsystem (I mean deprecation) but we need to be accurate about this 16:32:16 and test for backwards compatibility 16:32:55 rbrady: so probably, you need to sketch up all most needed stuff like Action, Result in mistral-lib first 16:33:25 and then those who will be making changes (maybe myself) in engine and executor could use these classes 16:34:13 rahkmerov: ack 16:34:17 ok 16:34:48 very important question to me: do you think it's feasible to finish in N-3? 16:35:13 to me the answers seems to be "yes" 16:35:20 seem.. 16:35:26 rahkmerov: I think so. what's the date for N-3? 16:35:37 it's basically the end of Aug 16:36:01 rbrady: the bad thing is that I'll be on vacation most likely in Aug for 2 weeks 16:36:01 1st of September is the deadline, I guess 16:36:07 well, actually for it's good ) 16:36:14 I mean not for the project 16:36:58 ok, then I'm just asking you to be in touch on that all the time 16:37:16 and bring up concerns and roadblocks earlier if they occur 16:37:27 rahkmerov: ack 16:37:32 thanks 16:37:53 as far as moving OpenStack actions to mistral-extra 16:38:03 it's a really interesting piece of work 16:38:06 IMO 16:38:22 we'll be able to move it pretty easily 16:38:29 I have a set of custom actions to consider when doing this work, but are there any other custom actions published anywhere else? 16:38:39 but we also need to address a number of things that are designed not well now 16:39:16 rbrady: there's a bunch of actions created by our users but I don't think we need to take them into account 16:39:21 so basically, no 16:39:32 it's only mistral repo for now 16:39:58 rahkmerov: I thought it might be helpful wrt to types 16:40:00 for those external actions we just need to provide backwards compatibility for now 16:40:19 wrt to types? 16:40:25 what do you mean? 16:41:15 rahkmerov: I wasn't sure if there are any other types commonly used in custom actions other than mistral.workflow.utils.Result 16:41:36 ooh, nothing else atm 16:41:45 it's just Result, and ActionException 16:42:35 there's also one more thing that's described in Action class docstring 16:42:40 action_context 16:42:57 special parameter that actions are allowed to have 16:43:10 we'll need to get rid of it too 16:43:38 as that stuff available through that param (like execution id) will be available in a different way now 16:44:01 ok, I think we're good here now 16:44:29 I'll file all sub blueprints tomorrow 16:44:54 any other comments here? 16:45:29 +1 16:45:46 #topic Open discussion 16:46:13 one more thing that I'd like to pay your attention to is Mistral logo email thread 16:46:25 please take a look at the latest comments 16:46:48 I think most of you are aware of the special Foundation initiative on creating logos 16:47:00 (side note - it is under [mistal] tag (missing r, took me a while to find it)) 16:47:16 ooh, yes, sorry 16:47:42 [openstack-dev] [mistal] Mistral logo ideas? 16:47:55 I like the mascot idea 16:48:19 yeah 16:48:30 and we won't have to use what they create 16:48:38 if we don't like it we can come up with our own 16:48:54 but it'd be cool to have it with the same style as other projects 16:49:08 ok, guys, I'm done for today :) 16:49:22 any other topics, questions? 16:49:55 not from my side 16:50:02 ok to shut down the meeting? 16:50:08 counting to 10 16:50:09 +1 16:50:09 1 16:50:10 2 16:50:10 3 16:50:12 4 16:50:14 5 16:50:16 6 16:50:18 7 16:50:20 8 16:50:22 9 16:50:24 10 16:50:26 sold! 16:50:28 thanks for joining! :) 16:50:29 thanks 16:50:30 thanks, bye 16:50:30 bye 16:50:33 bye 16:50:39 #endmeeting