17:07:36 #startmeeting murano 17:07:37 Meeting started Tue Jul 22 17:07:36 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is tsufiev. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:07:38 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:07:40 The meeting name has been set to 'murano' 17:07:48 hi all! 17:07:54 hello 17:08:18 hi 17:08:19 Hi 17:08:25 hi 17:08:36 seems all people that usually drive this meeting are flying on the plane (ruhe) or PTO (smelikyan) 17:09:19 lets start with agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/MuranoAgenda 17:09:50 #topic AI review 17:10:17 [katyafervent & tsufiev] Provide an update on horizon/dashboard/selenium tests research 17:10:34 I have no update on that topic 17:10:34 I didn't do it :( 17:10:56 I guess we should try to run our tests on devstack and it should work 17:11:12 and horizon guys will review our selenium tests :) 17:11:42 katyafervent, I remember ruhe asked us to create an etherpad with results of our investigations about unit and integration tests in Horizon/Muranodashboard 17:12:19 we do have an etherpad, but there are no updates there 17:12:29 katyafervent, could you provide a link? 17:13:20 it should be in the previous meeting history, sorry I can't provide it right now 17:14:00 I suggest to move on 17:14:01 ok 17:14:39 #action tsufiev/katyafervent2 update etherpad with results of our investigations about unit and integration tests in Horizon/Muranodashboard 17:14:51 #topic Discuss approval of https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/support-keystone-v3 17:15:05 that's me! 17:15:10 sjmc7, yep :) 17:15:30 i have not got much further with it, but our keystone team has agreed to help me with it 17:15:49 so i'm hoping to get that done in our coming sprint (over the next two weeks) 17:16:26 any objections? 17:17:15 no 17:17:23 sjmc7, I suspect that BP's approval should be delayed until next time when ruhe appears online 17:17:30 sure 17:17:53 ok 17:18:01 sjmc7, next one is also yours 17:18:09 #topic Update on trusts 17:18:43 i don't have much of an update. i think the approach i put in the BP should work, but i haven't had a chance to try to implement a proof of concept it yet 17:20:20 sjmc7, I remember that Sahara guys and possibly Mistral had used trusts in their projects 17:20:34 yep. heat too 17:20:59 i'll take a look at those projects 17:22:49 sjmc7, ok, if you have any difficulties, we could ask them directly 17:22:56 sure 17:23:00 let's move on 17:23:26 #topic Discuss approval of https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/support-keystone-v3 17:23:43 sorry 17:23:48 #topic Discuss https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/application-license-tab 17:24:08 let me get ryan 17:25:27 drupalmonkey, this one's you 17:25:34 application license tab 17:26:44 It seems reasonable to have license as part of package manifest, not UI form 17:27:35 slagun: if you want a checkbox for people to agree to the license terms though, would need to be in the UI yaml 17:27:43 drupalmonkey, the problem with license embedded into Add Application wizard's description section (right side of the form) is that usually License is quite large 17:28:44 It fits well into TextArea widget, otherwise form will be too tall 17:28:59 drupalmonkey: If BP is about checkbox then why ut contains YAML definition? 17:29:26 I think license details and tracking of license agreements is 2 separate BPs 17:29:36 i added a couple lines for formatting here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108473/2/muranodashboard/templates/services/_wizard_create.html 17:29:49 so if you have a lot of text you don't end up with a huge modal window 17:29:53 becomes scrollable 17:30:42 ultimately i think licensing needs a larger amount of work to do properly (allow licenses to be bought, or tracked per seat or something) 17:30:51 gokrokve, we're still discussing License & Requirements tabs 17:31:01 hi 17:31:05 but for now we just need to be able to say that the user read a EULA 17:31:33 sjmc7: I think this is enough for the current release. Just display the EULA and show a checkobox. 17:31:44 ok. i agree that it's not the best longer term solution 17:32:17 Do you need to track EULA agreement signatures? 17:32:24 Is it urgent? If yes, lets make it a part of UI form. If not lets extend API with ability to request manifest info and have license text be stored in manifest + extra API to track user agreement 17:32:27 drupalmonkey, I'll look at this BP's reviews in a short time 17:32:48 slagun: I think we have license part in manifest. 17:32:52 i don't think so, gokrokve. we just need to demonstrate that we've displayed it to the user 17:33:08 sjmc7: Ok. It is pretty easy to implement. 17:33:23 gokrokve - yeah, ryan's already submitted a patch 17:33:35 gokrokve: even if we have we probably need to expand it. And most important make it accessible to dashboard 17:33:38 slagun - it's urgent in the sense that we can't package some things without it 17:33:40 sjmc7: Cool. Then lets review it and merge 17:34:04 but ryan's work doesn't integrate with the license tab, just the deployment flow (since that's where we need to confirmation) 17:35:24 I mean is it so urgent that we don't have time to implement it right way? 17:35:29 sjmc7: I think we can do this on UI side. Just do not enable deploy button if EULA is not checked. 17:36:03 sjmc7, gokrokve: if we have some further plans for those 2 tabs, perhaps we could leave them as is for now together with merging Ryan's work? 17:36:10 ryan's patch just lets us add it as a UI input 17:36:13 slagun: I think this is one of the requirement in HP. They should follow some legal reqirements if they expose soft to clients 17:36:51 gokrokve: I understand. But maybe we can implement it better even if it takes some more time 17:36:59 tsufiev: There is no anythinh urgent from our side for these tabs. So we can focus on HP requirements for them 17:37:02 slagun - we can spend some time on doing it right, but deciding on 'right' and implementing it is not a quick process 17:37:11 i mean, leave as is for J2, make constistent in J3 17:37:25 i need to discuss it more with our product and legal people 17:37:29 sjmc7: Agree. There is no specific requirements set form our side. 17:38:34 EULA is mandatory for customer facing stuff. So I would rather merge Ryan's fix + add deploy button disable. We don't need to do anything on API and Engine part for that. 17:38:55 It looks inconsistent that we can deploy anything from CLI/pythonclient without accepting EULA 17:39:16 slagun - yes, i agree 17:39:38 we will not be encouraging people to deploy from the CLI though, because it's really difficult 17:40:01 ultimately we can't stop someone installing it themselves anyway since it's a glance image 17:40:08 Agree. UI is 95% of all use cases for now. 17:40:18 We can add this to CLI and API later. 17:40:26 sjmc7: I accept is as a temporary solution. As soon as we all agree that it is temporary :) 17:41:10 ok. seems like we more-or-less agreed 17:41:48 because the intention was to freeze current UI forms format. It needs complete rework to supplement MuranoPL contracts, not to duplicate them 17:41:54 +1. Lets do a quick fix to satisfy minimal legal requirements and lets file a new bug or BP to track activities with further fix in this area. 17:42:00 sjmc7, I'll add an action for you to get more details from product and legal people 17:43:54 #action [sjmc7] Get more details on Apps Licencing from HP side; others are encouraged to review Ryan's commits on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/application-license-tab 17:44:32 #topic J2 release 17:45:01 https://launchpad.net/murano/+milestone/juno-2 17:45:50 autho/supplier is done 17:46:09 ah, sorry, already marked 'implemented 17:46:15 katyafervent, speaking of https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/divide-upload-package-into-two-steps I've almost finished with the infrastructure you need: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107769/ 17:46:29 tsufiev:cool 17:46:42 looks like we need some bug fixing 17:46:55 Most of this blueprint is done 17:47:08 sjmc7:right 17:47:37 katyafervent, it still requires one more patchset, but you can already base your work on current state 17:49:54 1 Critical confirmed, 3 High in progress 17:52:18 bug scrub/bug squash? 17:53:24 here is a bug list prioritized: https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bugs?field.searchtext=&orderby=-importance&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&assignee_option=any&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.structural_subscriber=&field.tag=&field.tags_combinator=ANY&field.has_cve.used=&field.omit_dupes.used=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.affects_me.used=&fiel 17:53:24 d.has_patch.used=&field.has_branches.used=&field.has_branches=on&field.has_no_branches.used=&field.has_no_branches=on&field.has_blueprints.used=&field.has_blueprints=on&field.has_no_blueprints.used=&field.has_no_blueprints=on&search=Search 17:54:10 ok, we all agree that bugfixing is important and will do it ASAP :) 17:54:20 moving on... 17:54:31 #topic https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bugs?field.searchtext=&orderby=-importance&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&assignee_option=any&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.structural_subscriber=&field.tag=&field.tags_combinator=ANY&field.has_cve.used=&field.omit_dupes.used=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.affects_me.used=&field.has_patch.used=&field.h 17:54:31 as_branches.used=&field.has_branches=on&field.has_no_branches.used=&field.has_no_branches=on&field.has_blueprints.used=&field.has_blueprints=on&field.has_no_blueprints.used=&field.has_no_blueprints=on&search=Search 17:54:44 #topic [sjmc7] - Image tagging (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/040673.html) - whether there's anything we can do short term to make this more flexible 17:55:43 sorry again for wrong link, hard to forget Linux shortcuts in Windows 17:55:43 yeah.. there are obviously lots of things that could be handled in the contract stuff 17:56:10 but i think just in the short term, having a list of tags defined in the UI code leads to problems 17:56:54 i don't really have a big problem with using glance metadata to tag images, just that a static list like that is difficult. it almost seems better just to allow freeform tags 17:58:05 the purpose of current tagging is to filter images. If app requires Linux it should not have an option to select Windows 17:58:19 sjmc7: have you read my response in ML? 17:58:24 yeah 17:58:50 I think ML is a good place to discuss it 17:59:21 ok. but as things are, we will need to tag things with the glance CLI 17:59:32 agree on ML, especially we're running out of time here 17:59:47 +1 for good and flexible image tags 17:59:48 I agree on free-form tagging as long as this consistent with filtering and future plans 18:00:19 there are tagging for the machine and tagging for the user 18:00:29 yeah. i'll reply in the ML, you're right 18:00:42 #topic Open Discussion 18:00:49 we're out of time 18:00:55 setting this only to copy-paste ruhe words 18:00:57 [ruhe] reviewers, please make sure linked blueprints are approved and have all the required fields filled before you set +1/+2/approved on a patch. I found multiple instances of almost empty blueprints with merged patches. That doesn't help to track changes we have in the project. 18:01:07 so, please keep that in mind :) 18:01:14 yeah, we need to keep on top of that better 18:01:31 #endmeeting