17:03:48 #startmeeting qa 17:03:48 Meeting started Thu Jan 16 17:03:48 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dkranz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:03:49 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:03:51 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 17:04:15 aha dkranz you run the meeting 17:04:46 Yes, Matt wasn't sure he could make it. 17:04:50 So who is here today? 17:04:57 o/ 17:05:00 o/ 17:05:01 me too 17:05:05 Hi I'm here but I may have to leave soon 17:05:20 o/ 17:05:24 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting 17:05:34 Agenda 17:06:12 So blueprints is first 17:06:32 andreaf: Since you need to leave, is there anything specific from you? 17:07:44 ok, next up is negative tests 17:07:48 dkranz, on the blueprints, to avoid them growing again out of control, I propose everyone to approve those which have been already discussed 17:07:58 mkoderer: Do you want to give an update? 17:08:15 dkranz: yes y not 17:08:16 giulivo: ok 17:08:38 giulivo: I think sdague would say we just want to approve those that will actually be worked on now. 17:09:00 the first patch for the negative test blueprint will be ready for review tomorrow 17:09:32 IMHO we have all the necessary features in there 17:09:45 mkoderer: I agree 17:09:59 mkoderer: We don't want feature creep before the first real submission 17:10:15 mkoderer: I think it strikes the right balance now 17:10:37 So we can send an email to the qa list when it is ready 17:10:50 ok let's do it that way 17:10:55 Any comments about negative test strategy? 17:11:15 positive nagetive tests? :) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/65626/1/tempest/api/compute/admin/test_flavors.py 17:11:49 positive negative test? what? ;) 17:12:16 afazekas: I'm missing something that you meant by pointing to that review ? 17:12:27 I saw sever patches which uses different type than we normally use. 17:12:53 afazekas: I think that is testing that both int and string work as flavors 17:12:56 Lot of new test case can be created If we really want to test thease int string things 17:13:22 afazekas: Let's not then. 17:13:42 I mean the framework the we build could be used for positive tests as well.. 17:14:06 mkoderer: Yes, but only a limited kind 17:14:22 But I don't think we should go there right now. 17:14:27 Anything else on negative? 17:14:28 dkranz: that right.. and for me this is something that we can do later 17:14:44 no not from me 17:15:11 rahmu: Config verification status/discussion 17:15:41 rahmu: We may need to push this til next week because mtreinish is not here. Or is this a different issue? 17:16:24 rahmu: You there? 17:17:14 rahmu also has the "six" issue so I guess we need to wait for him (her?) 17:17:35 #topic Critical / High bug review 17:17:49 Any bugs we need to deal with? 17:18:43 We are back to 20 or so New bugs 17:19:27 malini: marconi? 17:19:34 sure 17:19:36 #topic marconi testing 17:19:48 Just to give everybody some background, Marconi (a.k.a Queueing) is currently in incubation & we are steadily moving towards completing our graduation requirements. 17:20:10 I am working on adding Tempest tests & have some patches already 17:20:25 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/add-basic-marconi-tests,n,z 17:20:35 I would like some reviews on these 17:20:42 afazekas: You gave a +1 to the tempest patch 17:20:50 & Also feedback on stuff that we need to get done to graduate 17:20:58 yess..Thanks afazekas again :) 17:21:25 malini: I can have look, could you simply add me to the reviewers list? 17:21:30 sure ! 17:21:32 easier for me to find them 17:21:33 dkranz: it will +2, when the other parts are merged 17:21:34 thanks mkoderer 17:21:48 afazekas: ok, great 17:21:54 afazekas: anything I can do to get the other parts merged? 17:22:14 malini: You need to talk to the folks who have approval rights on those projects 17:22:37 malini: which is basically the infra team 17:22:53 dkranz: thanks! I'll ping in #openstack-infra 17:22:54 malini: try to ping core reviews on the other projects at he #openstack-infra 17:23:09 malini: Great 17:23:10 I am planning to add the basic api tests to tempest 17:23:16 Is that sufficient to graduate? 17:23:25 malini: No 17:23:36 malini: THere are a whole bunch of other issues 17:24:10 dkranz: can I get some pointers on the other stuff? 17:24:16 dkranz: do we have it somewhere documented what is needed? 17:24:29 malini: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/IncubationUpdate2013 17:24:48 malini: I am not sure that is completely up to date 17:25:27 This is our current plan https://blueprints.launchpad.net/marconi/+spec/graduation 17:25:50 But I am looking specifically for tempest specific stuff 17:26:30 Did I sacre everybody away? 17:26:34 malini: I think having tempest tests that actually run somehow is all that is needed but I don't know about how comprehensive they have to be 17:26:34 scare* 17:27:00 malini: You need to take that up with the technical committee I think 17:27:37 dkranz: ok..I was under the impression that somebidy here would have a say on the tempest part of it 17:27:57 malini: An opinion perhaps 17:28:13 sure dkranz! 17:28:17 malini: You should look at the coverage of the other projects to get an idea 17:28:21 I am looking for all the opinions I can get 17:28:38 malini: But dont look at heat of ceilometer 17:28:51 ok :) 17:28:51 malini: They were graduated before there was a tempest requirement 17:29:25 which would be a good one ? 17:29:36 malini: Perhaps glance 17:29:44 malini: Since it is relatively small 17:29:50 ok.. 17:29:55 agordeev1: ironic testing 17:30:03 #topic ironic testing 17:30:05 hi 17:30:44 just want to highlight the theme of ironic functional testing 17:30:53 agordeev1: ok, go ahead 17:31:45 agordeev1: You there? 17:31:49 the infra/qa guys suggested the way of testing. But i'm not sure if it is the best way to do that 17:32:02 so, we introduced the alternative way 17:32:13 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64420/ and partially implemented it 17:32:44 also started a discussion on mailing list 17:32:58 agordeev1: I saw that discussion 17:33:15 agordeev1: I didn't see a negative response to your suggestion 17:35:01 thanks for paying attention to it 17:35:03 agordeev1: I guess that patch will get reviewed 17:35:20 agordeev1: Have you gotten any negative feed back? 17:35:43 i hope for now we have a time to disccuss the solution and choose the right way 17:36:01 dkranz: no, there is no feedback at all. Only a comment from devananda 17:36:40 afazekas: Do you have any comment about this? 17:37:18 * afazekas reading the patch 17:37:59 I don't have a strong opinion about this 17:39:19 git status 17:39:28 sorry, missed 17:39:38 vponomaryov: ?? 17:41:06 i'm hoping of getting more feedback/comments for the next meeting. For now, thank you for letting me to highlight this topic here :) 17:41:11 * afazekas may be the driver calls could be config option .. 17:42:36 agordeev1: ok, there are a lot of people not here today due to neutron/tempest Montreal thing 17:42:37 * IgorYozhikov is now away: went away... 17:43:02 #topic Criical reviews 17:43:09 Critical 17:43:45 We should continue to watch for heat and ceilometer patches though I don't believe there are any in need of attention right now 17:44:48 #topic Open Discussion 17:44:58 Any one have anything else to discuss? 17:45:43 dkranz: one thing 17:45:48 vponomaryov: Yes 17:46:07 On previous meeting, we have discussed refactoring of rest-client https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62923/ 17:46:34 and we came to the next: add unittests and only one patch 17:47:04 unittests has been added, and its waiting for review 17:47:37 vponomaryov: ok, we should review that 17:47:43 vponomaryov: Thanks 17:47:56 dkranz: ok, thanks 17:48:13 Anything else? 17:48:37 dkranz: hey, sorry I was in a work meeting 17:48:48 is there still time to talk about the use-six blueprint? 17:48:51 rahmu: ok, you had two issues 17:48:55 rahmu: Go ahea 17:49:36 I thought we could start preparing for an eventual python 3 migration 17:49:48 by including the Six library as much as we can 17:49:58 https://pypi.python.org/pypi/six/1.1.0 17:50:06 other projects are already doing that 17:50:30 I wrote a blueprint to track this: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/use-six 17:50:45 I don't know if the topic has already been discussed in the QA team 17:50:50 what do you guys think about it? 17:51:27 rahmu: We need to look at that. I am not familiar with it and am not sure how much code would need to change. 17:52:01 okay 17:52:25 briefly, six will do runtime detection of the python version 17:52:55 and will replace something like six.iteritems(mydict) with mydict.iteritems() in python 2 and mydict.items() in python 3 17:53:03 this is how the lib works for the most part 17:53:22 we can see here the other projects tracking this effort: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Python3 17:54:04 dkranz: any idea when would be the best time to bring this idea up? 17:54:48 rahmu: I suggest a mailing list discussion 17:54:59 dkranz: okay will do 17:55:13 rahmu: otherwise we can discuss it on the next summit 17:55:36 I have doubts that we get py3 support for this release 17:55:43 Yes, you can propose it as a session when the session website comes up 17:56:01 mkoderer: yeah sure. 17:56:08 mkoderer: I agree, but have no doubt that we won't 17:56:26 Anything else before we run out of time? 17:57:06 ok, our next meeting will be at 22:00 17:57:10 Thanks, all 17:57:16 #endmeeting