20:00:37 <johnsom> #startmeeting Octavia
20:00:38 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jun 27 20:00:37 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is johnsom. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:00:39 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:00:41 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'octavia'
20:00:45 <johnsom> Hi folks!
20:00:47 <cgoncalves> o/
20:01:05 <johnsom> I know Nir is on vacation today, so he won't be joining us
20:01:24 <johnsom> #topic Announcements
20:01:41 <johnsom> Just a friendly reminder, we have a priority review list for Rocky
20:01:48 <johnsom> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/octavia-priority-reviews
20:02:12 <johnsom> We have been making progress, thank you! However we still have more work to do
20:02:36 <rm_work> o/
20:02:44 <johnsom> Also of note this week, we filed governance patches for upgrade tags
20:02:51 <johnsom> #link https://review.openstack.org/577967
20:02:58 <johnsom> #link https://review.openstack.org/577970
20:03:18 <johnsom> It looks like we have good support there, so likely in a week or two we will have the supports upgrades tags.
20:03:56 <johnsom> Special shout out to cgoncalves for his work getting us to this point with upgrades
20:04:28 <cgoncalves> team effort!
20:04:49 <nmagnezi> O/
20:04:53 <johnsom> I think I also need to file for the standard-deprecation tag, which seems to have disappeared during the neutron-lbaas split.  We certainly qualify for that one too
20:05:25 <johnsom> Any other announcements today?
20:05:59 <johnsom> #topic Brief progress reports / bugs needing review
20:06:02 <rm_work> Just an FYI that apparently LOCI is supporting Octavia now -- just noticed today after someone mentioned they're using those.
20:06:17 <johnsom> Yeah, that is cool.
20:06:43 <johnsom> We probably should have a partner projects links page to keep track of this stuff.
20:06:54 <cgoncalves> sorry for my ignorance. what is LOCI? xD
20:07:11 <johnsom> #link https://github.com/openstack/loci
20:07:20 <johnsom> Lightweight OCI compatible images for OpenStack Projects
20:07:31 <cgoncalves> nice!
20:08:10 <johnsom> So, I finished up the "dual amphora down failover" patch. It is up for review.
20:08:30 <johnsom> I then shifted to reviewing the UDP patches, as that is a feature I would like to get into Rocky.
20:08:41 <johnsom> Still some work to do there, but good progress.
20:09:09 <johnsom> While I waited on a update cycle with the UDP patches I have started work on the migration tool again.
20:09:39 <johnsom> I should have it done today. I just have the L7 tables to do and some cleanup work.
20:10:11 <nmagnezi> I provide feedback on that migration tool next week when I'm in office again
20:10:18 <nmagnezi> I'll*
20:10:18 <johnsom> How do people feel about testing for that tool?  Is it worth me investing time in creating a periodic gate or would basic testing be good enough?
20:10:55 <johnsom> Technically to do it right it would be checking hundreds of fields, which for a one-time-use tool seems a bit much.
20:11:11 <cgoncalves> johnsom, would anyone actually check results of a periodic gate?
20:11:32 <johnsom> I am pretty sure I am the only one that occasionally looks at the periodic gates.....
20:12:23 <johnsom> Since you can't bookmark it....  It's not easy to glance at
20:12:25 <cgoncalves> if you do... all good :)
20:12:50 <johnsom> #link http://zuul.openstack.org/builds.html
20:13:03 <johnsom> Pipeline is "periodic" project is "openstack/octavia"
20:13:59 <johnsom> So, yeah, that was kind of my thought too.  I don't think I will invest time in building a gate for it. I will do a bunch of manual testing local though.  It also has a nice "trial run" setting.
20:14:15 <rm_work> i mean, something as simple as "create a LB in n-lbaas, run script, use octavia to look at it" should be good enough?
20:14:38 <johnsom> Once it's posted for review, if you have environments with LBs running in neutron-lbaas and an Octavia database, you can do the trial run and let me know if anything fails.
20:14:38 <cgoncalves> what about adding a voting job to your patch while it's under review? once it's good, you remove the job and have it merged?
20:14:42 <rm_work> just prove at least that the script runs and successfully exits
20:15:35 <johnsom> Yeah, it's just a trade off of my time.  If you all think a gate is worth it, ok, I will put something together.
20:15:57 <nmagnezi> rm_work +1. I was kinda thinking the same. I was trying to think about corner cases but for the legacy haproxy in namespace we don't even have support for L7 rules (last I checked)
20:16:17 <rm_work> i think this is only octavia->octavia
20:16:21 <nmagnezi> So shouldn't be too hard to create bunch of loadbalancers with different configs and migrate them
20:16:28 <rm_work> not migrating across providers
20:16:56 <johnsom> The work I am finishing is for migrating any provider, but no provider conversion, just straight across
20:17:17 <nmagnezi> btw
20:17:21 <nmagnezi> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554420/
20:18:39 <johnsom> Yep, thanks.  Not sure what was up with that requirements thing given I didn't change the main requirements file, but we will see what happens.  Could be the main file is wrong and the new requirements management stuff is not so helpful anymore
20:20:16 <johnsom> So what I am hearing is a gate test is valuable to folks, so I will spend a day and set something up.
20:21:13 <johnsom> Anyone have an other progress updates to share?
20:22:09 <johnsom> #topic Talk about API versioning/microversioning
20:22:22 <johnsom> So I have posted an update to my version discovery patch:
20:22:28 <johnsom> #link https://review.openstack.org/559460
20:22:35 <johnsom> The example output is here:
20:22:41 <johnsom> #link http://paste.openstack.org/show/724425/
20:23:24 <johnsom> Please comment on the patch and if this path works for you, etc.
20:23:35 <johnsom> This is another one I want to get into Rocky.
20:23:57 <nmagnezi> +1
20:23:58 <xgerman_> sorry for being late
20:24:02 <johnsom> We have less than a month left to get features into Rocky
20:24:10 <johnsom> #link https://releases.openstack.org/rocky/schedule.html
20:24:46 <nmagnezi> johnsom, btw re:periodic gate bookmarks, I think I was able to get this working as a URL: http://zuul.openstack.org/builds.html?pipeline=periodic&project=openstack%2Foctavia
20:25:00 <johnsom> Any more discussion on versions beyond comments for the patch?
20:25:18 <cgoncalves> FYI, cinder also does microversions
20:25:25 <johnsom> nmagnezi Ha, nice
20:25:30 <nmagnezi> :)
20:25:49 <cgoncalves> #link https://docs.openstack.org/cinder/ocata/devref/api_microversion_dev.html
20:25:51 <johnsom> cgoncalves Yes, a few projects do.
20:26:09 <nmagnezi> cgoncalves, they have something like 3 major version
20:26:20 <nmagnezi> Painful.. :)
20:26:27 <cgoncalves> I asked a cinder core for feedback and he said it has been working pretty good for them
20:27:43 <cgoncalves> johnsom, re: output of your patch http://paste.openstack.org/show/724425/
20:27:58 <johnsom> Just to circle back on why I'm proposing not to jump into microversions right now is by default, if you don't specify a microversion, you always get the oldest API. To me, since so far we are "additive" it seems simpler to go down the path I have proposed.
20:27:59 <cgoncalves> it's a big strange having CURRENT as v2.1 but href is v2.0
20:28:34 <johnsom> cgoncalve Strange, but the beauty of it....  grin
20:28:38 <rm_work> yeah, well
20:28:47 <rm_work> ideally i think we wouldn't have any version in the URL?
20:28:53 * rm_work shrugs
20:29:11 <johnsom> v2.1 indicates there is an expansion to the API, but since the v2.1 is fully compatible with the v2.0 version it can share a path
20:31:38 <johnsom> The alternative is to fork off paths for each dot release, or do the header microversion filter thing
20:31:41 <cgoncalves> I'd expect href ending with /v2 then :)
20:32:12 <johnsom> We could alias it if you want. We do need to keep /v2.0 for backward compatibility
20:32:43 <johnsom> We probably need to figure out how to handle the api-ref too
20:33:11 <rm_work> don't people normally just add "available in version 2.1 or greater" or whatever?
20:33:28 <rm_work> for new features
20:34:28 <johnsom> Yeah, probably. Part of the trouble here is the API woking group has zero guidelines or tools for this.
20:34:40 <rm_work> yeah it would be nice if that was like... a field
20:35:04 <johnsom> #link https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/discoverability.html
20:36:36 <johnsom> Yeah, it would be nice if the api-ref template had a way to handle that. I will look into how to update the api-ref
20:37:38 <johnsom> This publishing practice means that you must write inline information when an API has a change release-to-release. Inline text descriptions are the only way to convey the corresponding release information to the documentation consumer.
20:37:44 <johnsom> To quote that doc...
20:37:49 <johnsom> #link https://docs.openstack.org/doc-contrib-guide/api-guides.html
20:39:26 <johnsom> So I guess comment on the patch?  I am open to aliasing /v2 and switching the api-ref over to that if that is cleaner. Or we can keep going down the /v2.0 and versions v2.1, v2.2, etc.
20:42:32 <johnsom> Ok, I guess I will come up with something.
20:43:03 <johnsom> #topic Open Discussion
20:43:05 <cgoncalves> to me aliasing /v2 would make sense but I don't have a strong opinion on this, at least right now. I'd be fine with incremental /v2.x
20:43:12 <johnsom> Other topics today?
20:44:55 <cgoncalves> not specific to Octavia but I take that many folks have been waiting for it for some time now. Red Hat OpenStack Platform 13 (Queens-based) has been released today and it features Octavia full support
20:45:08 <johnsom> Wahoo!
20:45:13 <xgerman_> Wahoo —
20:45:28 <johnsom> Congratulations folks that worked on OSP 13 support for Octavia.
20:45:32 <xgerman_> If you ever need to install Octavia on OSP 12 I have some scripts…
20:45:54 <nmagnezi> xgerman_, good luck with that :-)
20:46:11 <xgerman_> thanks, we will need it
20:46:25 <nmagnezi> xgerman_, or.. just OSP13 ;)
20:46:32 <cgoncalves> xgerman_, will you also write an upgrade script when the time comes? :)
20:46:46 <xgerman_> I hope NOT…
20:47:06 <johnsom> lol, yeah, upgrade is going to be interesting
20:47:50 <johnsom> Well, if that is all, I will let us all get back to reviewing patches.
20:47:51 <cgoncalves> fear not! we have an upgrade guide upstream now \o/
20:48:07 <xgerman_> :-)
20:48:13 <nmagnezi> johnsom, that migration script will help us to move operators towards Octavia's direction. so it has *a lot* of value
20:48:23 <nmagnezi> :)
20:48:55 <johnsom> Yeah, it's not a "move from old provider x to new provider y", but it is a good first step and will help many folks.
20:49:27 <johnsom> Ok, folks, have a good week!
20:49:30 <johnsom> #endmeeting