18:35:47 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting Networking FWaaS
18:35:48 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Mar  4 18:35:47 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:35:49 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:35:53 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_fwaas'
18:35:58 <SumitNaiksatam> #info metting agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/FWaaS#Agenda_for_Next_Meeting
18:36:18 <SumitNaiksatam> so it seems there were issues with the gate yesterday evening
18:36:38 <SumitNaiksatam> i noticed that some of the fwaas patches are still in the queue
18:36:49 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: yes i one of them
18:36:55 <SumitNaiksatam> so if you submitted a patch yesterday, and wondering why jenkins did not vote
18:36:57 <SridarK> * I am
18:37:02 <SumitNaiksatam> check the gate queue
18:37:14 <SumitNaiksatam> some of my patches were bumped out of the queue
18:37:20 <SumitNaiksatam> so i have to “recheck” them in
18:37:24 <pc_m> queue is really deep...
18:37:33 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: i was just about to say
18:37:43 <SumitNaiksatam> so subsequently the queue built up to be really long
18:37:43 <pc_m> been waiting 5+ hours on one job.
18:38:00 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: true
18:38:00 <yalie1> some CI failed because pip server 503 for some time.
18:38:08 <SumitNaiksatam> the longest is 12 hours now
18:38:19 <SumitNaiksatam> yalie1: yes, gerrit was down i believe
18:38:38 <SumitNaiksatam> may be pypi as well
18:38:42 <SumitNaiksatam> not sure
18:38:49 <yalie1> yes
18:38:53 <SumitNaiksatam> anyway, that was just a heads up in case you were wondering
18:38:55 <SridarK> thankfully today is not Mar 17 or near there :-)
18:39:04 <pc_m> grenade was broken, fix merged last night.
18:39:06 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: yes, but...
18:39:13 <SridarK> :0)
18:39:19 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: ah, thats where all the patches were stuck
18:39:31 <SumitNaiksatam> march 18th is too far
18:39:44 <SumitNaiksatam> and fully expect that these kind of things will happen in the next few days
18:40:10 <SumitNaiksatam> also since this is the last milestone before feature freeze, everyone will try to get in
18:40:12 <pc_m> review 160913 fixed (reverted the devstack changes)
18:40:21 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: ah ok, good to know
18:40:29 <SumitNaiksatam> anything else, anyone want to share?
18:40:39 <SumitNaiksatam> in terms of announcements
18:40:53 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Bugs and Docs
18:41:16 <SumitNaiksatam> the new high priority doc bug is #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-site/+bug/1425658
18:41:18 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1425658 in openstack-api-site "FWaaS needs WADL doc to be available in the API reference" [High,Confirmed] - Assigned to Sumit Naiksatam (snaiksat)
18:41:26 <SumitNaiksatam> this came out of the discussion in last week’s meeting
18:41:50 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: you said you were looking at #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1427465
18:41:50 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1427465 in neutron "vArmour fwaas agent broken, unit tests skipped, CI not running" [Undecided,New] - Assigned to badveli_vishnuus (badveli-vishnuus)
18:42:10 <badveli> yes
18:42:26 <badveli> there is a patch available
18:42:30 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: just a suggestion - good to provide an update on the bug report
18:42:34 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: ah nice
18:42:59 <badveli> ok, just wanted to check with the team before
18:43:10 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont see the patch linked to the bug report
18:43:14 <SumitNaiksatam> have you posted the patch?
18:43:25 <badveli> updating the RouterInfo is taking some mandatory parameters
18:43:46 <badveli> not yet but i have it ready
18:44:10 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: okay
18:44:18 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: any reason not to post it right away?
18:44:53 <badveli> wanted to check with the team, i am adding the mandatory parameters agent.conf and interface.driver
18:45:06 <badveli> does any one had the same issue
18:46:31 <SridarK> badveli: this will be in vendor code ?
18:46:40 <badveli> i believe they are using mock.ANY for this
18:46:49 <badveli> yes
18:49:22 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: are we good on this?
18:49:40 <badveli> yes, looks like i had ran the unit tests and its fine
18:49:47 <badveli> will post the patch
18:50:04 <badveli> i am good on this
18:50:26 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: ok
18:50:29 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1418196
18:50:30 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1418196 in neutron "fwaas: driver base class is stale" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to yalei wang (yalei-wang)
18:50:57 <pc_m> FYI: Review 147744 has refactored namespaces for routers. I found that is breaking some VPN code using RouterInfo.
18:51:00 <SumitNaiksatam> i think yalie1 has updated the commit message to point to the correct commit id
18:51:12 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: okay, good to know
18:51:24 <yalie1> yes
18:51:25 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: probably good to make note of that ^^^
18:51:30 <SumitNaiksatam> yalie1: i will look into ti
18:51:36 <yalie1> thanks
18:51:47 <pc_m> SumitNaiksatam: I pulled a view with that neutron pass and have been working on a fix.
18:51:56 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: yes pc_m - added me to his review already - so will gauge implications -
18:52:18 <pc_m> We had a discussion yesterday about neutron commits breaking *aaS
18:52:33 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: ah good
18:52:37 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147396
18:52:39 <pc_m> Some talk about pinning to a specific commit on Neutron.
18:52:52 <pc_m> Plan is to discuss at next Neutron meeting.
18:53:03 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: yeah that might help (for the time being until we have a coordinated gate)
18:53:16 <SumitNaiksatam> is yushiro here?
18:53:23 <yushiro> SumitNaiksatam, yes.
18:53:39 <SumitNaiksatam> i tried to reproduce the above and noticed another issue in the policy.json, so i fixed that first
18:54:08 <SumitNaiksatam> after fixing that, i think yushiro’s patch makes more sense
18:54:21 <SumitNaiksatam> yushiro: so i will try to get back to that at the earliest
18:54:28 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks for your patience on this
18:55:02 <SumitNaiksatam> yushiro: the UT is still failing on that patch though
18:55:28 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: was your doc patch merged?
18:55:36 <yushiro> SumitNaiksatam, yes.  this UT needs https://review.openstack.org/#/c/157355/
18:55:47 <vishwanathj> SumitNaiksatam, yes
18:56:07 <vishwanathj> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/158943/
18:56:37 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: nice
18:56:56 <SumitNaiksatam> yushiro: ah did not realize there was a dependency
18:57:23 <SumitNaiksatam> yushiro: sorry will check that patch, seems like SridarK already voted on it
18:57:36 <vishwanathj> should the depends-on be added to the commit message
18:57:42 <yushiro> SumitNaiksatam,  Sorry.  I didn't know how2 make "dependency"
18:57:46 <SumitNaiksatam> any other important bugs that we missed?
18:57:54 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: yushiro: in this case you cant
18:57:55 <yushiro> SumitNaiksatam, yes.
18:58:02 <SumitNaiksatam> they are across repos
18:58:12 <SumitNaiksatam> or at least i am not aware of
18:58:17 <yushiro> SumitNaiksatam, I've already posted the fix about policy.json
18:58:45 <SumitNaiksatam> yushiro: sorry, which one are you talking about?
18:58:56 <pc_m> SumitNaiksatam: yeah, can depends-on across repos.
18:59:04 <yushiro> I'm talking about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145998
18:59:05 <pc_m> can't
18:59:45 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: yeah, my understanding too
18:59:58 <SumitNaiksatam> yushiro: okay got it, the fix i made was to the policy.json
19:00:22 <SumitNaiksatam> yushiro: thanks for all the good work here, the team owes you the reviews
19:00:30 <vishwanathj> +1
19:00:40 <SumitNaiksatam> one suggesstion on depends-on across repos, you can always state that in the commit message
19:01:10 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: perhaps you can help yushiro with the some of the reviews?
19:01:39 <SumitNaiksatam> the ideal think to do would be to set up a devstack, patch the fix, and then check that it works
19:02:00 <vishwanathj> SumitNaiksatam, sure, I will give it a try
19:02:07 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: great thanks!
19:02:18 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: badveli: did we miss any other bugs?
19:02:34 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: no i believe u have covered them all
19:02:38 <yushiro> SumitNaiksatam, vishwanathj,  thank you.
19:02:49 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: okay good
19:03:05 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Firewall Router Association
19:03:07 <badveli> i did not see
19:04:13 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: i know you have been working hard on this
19:04:32 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: thanks to all folks for the reviews
19:04:33 <SumitNaiksatam> i believe you have most of the feature implemented and are working through some of the UT issues
19:05:11 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: yes that is correct - i have the code for the optional use of the new attribute to pick up all routers on the tenant
19:05:18 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: i have tested this on devstack
19:05:21 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: nice
19:05:33 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: i am working thru the UT to cover this
19:05:39 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: with that change, do the existing tempest tests pass?
19:05:54 <SumitNaiksatam> my expectation is taht they would
19:05:56 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: i think it should
19:06:30 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: as in that case - i query the tenant for its routers and use that as the router list
19:06:59 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: this will go in to the router association db
19:07:06 <SridarK> with validation
19:07:23 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: ok, i kind of lost track if the tempest test is only an API test, or is it more functional in nature
19:07:39 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: it is only API i believe
19:07:42 <vishwanathj> SridarK, can you please briefly explain the "optional use of the new attribute to pick up all routers on the tenant" and how it is differnt from not specifying any router_ids at all
19:07:47 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: yeah, i guessed as much
19:08:07 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: its the same, the discussion we had in the meeting last week
19:08:14 <SridarK> vishwanathj: that is what it is when u don't specify --router-ids
19:08:35 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: if you dont specify the router_ids list, the existing behavior is preserved
19:08:42 <vishwanathj> SridarK, ok, got it
19:08:48 <SridarK> ok cool
19:09:14 <SridarK> On vendor impacts - i have reached out folks with code in the repo
19:09:24 <SridarK> freescale - no impacts
19:09:42 <SridarK> but their CI fails - they said it is some other issue
19:09:58 <yalie1> SridarK: will the tempest senaro test cases moved into fwaas?
19:10:05 <SridarK> brocade - had discussed this with vishwanathj & Karthik
19:10:10 <vishwanathj> SridarK, appreciate your time and initiative walking through Brocade FWaaS impacts
19:10:30 <SridarK> some minor impacts and we will cover that
19:10:48 <SridarK> on varmour - have brought this up with badveli & yisun
19:11:04 <SridarK> on vendors with reviews in progress
19:11:22 <SridarK> intel - yalie1 - pls do look at this and we can discuss impacts
19:11:35 <SridarK> on cisco - discussed this with SridarK
19:11:38 <SridarK> :-)
19:11:43 <SumitNaiksatam> yalie1: yes we need to do that, and i was going to touch on that a little
19:12:02 <SridarK> yalie1: yes as SumitNaiksatam mentions, sorry wanted to finish up my updates
19:12:02 <yalie1> SumitNaiksatam: thanks
19:12:26 <yalie1> SridarK: thanks
19:12:38 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: thanks for the update, and great work!
19:12:39 <SridarK> so i am hoping we can close any vendor implications today or tomorrow
19:12:54 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: no worries - keeping fingers crossed
19:13:05 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: i am done
19:13:18 <SumitNaiksatam> since we are so close to wrapping this up, i am assuming that if you havent heard from a vendor, then there is no impact
19:13:36 <SumitNaiksatam> i hope that is a reasonable assumption
19:13:39 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: i will assume that
19:13:53 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: also their UT's all pass
19:13:53 <yushiro> SridarK, great work!!  :-)
19:13:54 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: per our email discussion, did you get a chance to look at the horizon changes?
19:14:12 <SridarK> yushiro: thx :-)
19:14:34 <SumitNaiksatam> unfortunately yanping got pulled into something else, and she could not pursue this
19:14:45 <vishwanathj> SumitNaiksatam, started looking at the blueprint link that was sent out this morning
19:15:10 <vishwanathj> hope to have an initial analysis and questions compiled by tomorrow
19:15:21 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: okay, i believe the requirement is to post it before a certain date
19:15:33 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: its a process thing
19:15:35 <vishwanathj> SumitNaiksatam, what is that date?
19:15:46 <SridarK> vishwanathj: Mar 9 i believe
19:15:50 <vishwanathj> for the blueprint, right?
19:16:01 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: yeah ^^^, but thats hearing from others
19:16:23 <SridarK> vishwanathj: hmm i think u need a code patch
19:16:30 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: in case you have the time, and if the horizon meeting for this week hasnt already happened, may be you can check in during that meeting
19:16:53 <vishwanathj> SumitNaiksatam, SridarK, Code patch before march 9th could be a challenge though
19:17:05 <vishwanathj> but will give it my best
19:17:13 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: yes i completely understand
19:17:24 <SridarK> vishwanathj: i am not also 100% sure
19:17:44 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: that said, i think you will find that you will be following a lot existing implementation
19:17:47 <vishwanathj> let me get a blue print spec draft as soon as I can
19:18:05 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: i dont know to what detail they expect the blueprint
19:18:17 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: and i dont think they follow the gerrit spec process either
19:18:30 <SridarK> vishwanathj: i will also ask if yanping can help u on the bp
19:18:38 <SumitNaiksatam> so i believe its just a launchpad blueprint, but good to confirm
19:18:51 <vishwanathj> SumitNaiksatam, alteast that gives me the confidence that I have complete understanding
19:18:54 <SridarK> vishwanathj: may be u can also just reply to her email
19:19:00 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: yes
19:19:06 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: good suggestion
19:19:16 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: can we also add abishek to the thread?
19:19:23 <SumitNaiksatam> to get confirmed answers
19:19:32 <SridarK> SumitNaiksatam: yes i have reached out to him privately as well
19:19:37 <vishwanathj> SridarK, I was hoping to dedicate time this afternoon and tomorrow morning to spend time before I email her
19:19:43 <SridarK> on his availability etc
19:19:59 <SumitNaiksatam> SridarK: thanks, this one just for responding to procedural questions
19:20:02 <SumitNaiksatam> ok moving on
19:20:14 <SumitNaiksatam> vishwanathj: thanks for stepping on this at a very short notice!
19:20:22 <SumitNaiksatam> * stepping up
19:20:38 <vishwanathj> SumitNaiksatam, Thanks for the opportunity, hope to live upto the expectation
19:20:53 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic FWaaS functional testing gate
19:21:15 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: so i believe, we still need to do the same things for fwaas, as you did for vpnaas
19:21:36 <SumitNaiksatam> i am hoping to get on to this immediately after this meeting
19:21:56 <pc_m> yeah, setup a functional gate job to run the dsvm-functional test
19:21:58 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: will you be available to provide guidance if required?
19:22:02 <pc_m> sure
19:22:08 <pc_m> See that wiki link I made.
19:22:10 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: great, i will ping you on IRC
19:22:20 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: yes, i went through that
19:22:22 <pc_m> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/FunctionalGateSetup
19:22:24 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: i will start there
19:22:39 <pc_m> SumitNaiksatam: sure. I'm around.
19:23:12 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: in case you know this (and to yalie1’s question earlier), do you know if there is an immediate plan to move the existing tempest tests to the neutron and neutron_*aaS repos?
19:24:11 <pc_m> SumitNaiksatam: So... not allowed to add *aaS to tempest repo. Maru is working on migrating tests to Neutron
19:24:33 <pc_m> Then, *aaS test modules can be moved to respective repos.
19:25:00 <yalie1> will it completed in kilo?
19:25:01 <pc_m> Note: They are making a tempest library. It is really crude at this point, so limited functionality.
19:25:02 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: yes, i know about the “not allowed to add" part
19:25:25 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: yes, i thought that the tempest lib was the blocker, but perhaps not any more
19:25:29 <pc_m> yalie1: That's the goal, but I'm not sure. Maru will know how that is going.
19:25:48 <pc_m> SumitNaiksatam: They have the lib, but it only has some simple things available.
19:26:08 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: but he is not moving the neutron_*aaS tempest tests, right?
19:26:21 <pc_m> SumitNaiksatam: They told us (Nikolay from Cisco is doing a scenario test) to try duplicate some of what tempest does.
19:26:33 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: they being?
19:26:38 <pc_m> SumitNaiksatam: correct, but it should be easy, once it works udner neutron.
19:26:45 <pc_m> Infra folks
19:26:48 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: okay
19:26:58 <pc_m> Matt
19:26:58 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: i was asking more from the perspective of time lines
19:27:17 <yalie1> pc_m: thanks
19:27:21 <pc_m> My guess is the tempest lib won't be really usable for Kilo
19:28:01 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: it seems that there are no immediate timelines set for moving existing neutron_*aaS tempest test out of tempest into neutron_*aaS projects
19:28:14 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: or at least that is our collective understanding?
19:28:52 <pc_m> correct. Only to get tempest to neutron. (and I haven't seen any dates)
19:29:23 <SumitNaiksatam> ok cool
19:29:31 <pc_m> FYI: https://github.com/openstack/tempest-lib
19:29:40 <pc_m> There is not much in there.
19:29:50 <SumitNaiksatam> pc_m: thanks for the pointer, and the earlier information
19:29:56 <SumitNaiksatam> we have one minute left
19:30:00 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
19:30:13 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: i noticed you posted WIP patch for service objects, thanks
19:30:26 <SumitNaiksatam> any other parting thoughts from anyone?
19:30:28 <badveli> there are two patches
19:30:55 <badveli> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159692/
19:31:18 <badveli> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161076/
19:31:33 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: thanks!
19:31:42 <SumitNaiksatam> we are a minute over
19:31:51 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks everyone for your time today
19:31:58 <SumitNaiksatam> its crunch time now! ;-)
19:31:59 <SumitNaiksatam> back to work
19:32:01 <badveli> the firewall patch is a bit not sure how to implement
19:32:03 <SumitNaiksatam> bye all
19:32:12 <vishwanathj> bye
19:32:16 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: we can take it to #openstack-fwaas
19:32:17 <badveli> ok, i will follow up by email
19:32:23 <SumitNaiksatam> badveli: sure
19:32:26 <badveli> thanks sumit
19:32:28 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting