22:00:33 #startmeeting qa 22:00:34 Meeting started Thu May 29 22:00:33 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mtreinish. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 22:00:35 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 22:00:38 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 22:00:42 hi who's here today? 22:00:46 hi 22:00:49 hi 22:00:53 hi 22:00:54 o/ 22:00:55 * clarkb lurks 22:00:59 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting#Proposed_Agenda_for_May_29_2014_.282200_UTC.29 22:01:05 ^^^ Today's agenda 22:01:15 it's just the boilerplate one today... 22:01:39 * sarob lurks 22:02:12 ok, well let's get started 22:02:24 #topic Specs Review 22:02:38 so does anyone have a spec review they'd like to bring up 22:02:41 or to discuss 22:02:49 o/ 22:03:00 sdague: go ahead 22:03:22 oh, that was mostly just (I'm here) but while we're at it - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96445/ 22:03:34 is the write up of the javelin2 overview 22:03:52 heh, ok well that works out :) 22:04:37 so right now it mostly demonstrates the cli and the yaml that's being used. Comments welcomed 22:04:46 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96445/ 22:04:50 also breaks down the work chunks expected for the cycle 22:05:16 easier read here - http://docs-draft.openstack.org/45/96445/2/check/gate-qa-specs-docs/57ce662/doc/build/html/specs/javelin2.html 22:05:39 #link http://docs-draft.openstack.org/45/96445/2/check/gate-qa-specs-docs/57ce662/doc/build/html/specs/javelin2.html 22:05:49 that's it unless there are questions 22:06:03 I need to look into having a place to publish the specs after they're merged at some point 22:06:23 sdague: it looks sane to me, but I'll do a detailed review once it gets a +2 from someone else 22:08:05 which reminds me we need more reviews on qa-specs in general. Things have felt pretty stagnent on that review queue 22:08:20 but I'll bug people about that after the meeting :) 22:08:40 ok are there any other spec reviews that people want to bring up? 22:08:43 mtreinish: I want the team to know I am working on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95600/. It is for the Neutron scenarios we will be implementing in Juno. It is an early version, but please review it and give feedback 22:09:08 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95600/ 22:09:18 I already got a -1 from yfried. That's what I need at this point, though 22:09:46 mtreinish: yeh, I was hoping to get a new unified dashboard with all of that in place. Still haven't quite figured out a way to land project specific dashboards without bugging clarkb 22:10:29 mlavalle: it looks like a good start though. That's about what I was expecting for that spec. 22:10:41 sdague: yeah having that dashboard might help prioritize things 22:10:41 coll, thanks! 22:11:23 ok, if there aren't any other specs to discuss we'll move onto the next topic 22:11:28 * afazekas WIP: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95794/2/specs/network-debug.rst,cm 22:12:11 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95794/2/specs/network-debug.rst,cm 22:12:11 WIP: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96163/ 22:12:45 ^^^ about tempest server/client/GUI spec 22:12:54 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96163/ 22:12:57 masayukig: cool 22:13:11 sdague: thanks :) 22:13:28 afazekas: I'll review it by this weekend 22:13:45 masayukig: oh, I bet that'll be a contentious one :) 22:13:53 don't let jogo see it... 22:14:49 mtreinish: yeah... 22:15:06 afazekas: I'll do a dive down into that at some point 22:15:58 I have some concerns about doing out of band debug stuff in tree, like what we have now with the sudo stuff 22:16:30 ok is that it for specs, or are there any others? 22:17:08 ok then let's move on 22:17:11 #topic Blueprints 22:17:24 ok, does anyone have a blueprint status update 22:17:31 I still need to do the blueprint purge 22:17:40 but we have a handful of open bps with specs approved 22:18:12 sdague: we hit some more branchless tempest edge cases this week right? 22:18:38 yeh, ceilometer has a set of tests that are impossibly long in icehouse 22:18:48 but work under the juno code 22:18:59 yeees :( 22:19:32 so we need to do some kind of signalling for those in the gate 22:20:03 vrovachev: I was actually thinking about this on my bike ride today, would there be a way that we could have some ceilo extension that would give us bogomips of the system? 22:20:18 basically an idea of what our event processing rate might be 22:20:40 then you could actually ask ceilometer, and know programatically if the tests are viable 22:20:47 sdague: just to be a bit harsh we could always rip ceilo out of the icehouse gate to get around this too... 22:21:08 but that should be a last resort, and not something we want to do 22:21:09 mtreinish: we could, there aren't that many tests anyway, but it makes for a good test case 22:21:56 sdague, I think it is unlikely. 22:22:30 vrovachev: the issue is I'm not very thrilled about the idea that some magic piece of information is needed to know if this would work in a cloud 22:22:39 because it's not discoverable 22:22:59 and the thing we were planning to have to use this for was new extensions, which are discoverable 22:23:09 so this is a very weird thing 22:23:27 sdague: we do have other non-discoverable feature flags in the config now 22:23:32 not many though 22:23:47 mtreinish: not in the feature matrix though 22:23:59 that's fair because most of them don't work in the gate anyway 22:24:08 and if they do they default on 22:24:35 anyway, can probably take it offline 22:24:48 sdague: you're right a prereq for doing this should be having ceilo have some kind of discovery that sql actually works 22:24:57 sdague: yeah let's take this offline 22:25:10 ok are there any other bp status updates? 22:25:29 I do not know how you can work around this problem in tempest. because problem in the ceilo api in icehouce 22:26:26 ok if there aren't any other bps let's move on 22:26:39 #topic Neutron testing 22:26:51 mlavalle: this is your topic right? 22:26:55 mtreinish: yeah 22:27:10 another couple of api tests merged since last meeting 22:27:21 we are at 25 only another 3 to go 22:27:30 to complete the set we defined in January 22:27:41 mlavalle: we're getting there... 22:27:49 how many new apis were added since that list though? 22:27:55 also made progress this week with fwaas and vpaas scenario tests 22:28:14 we will be able to implement in one devstack 22:28:23 no need of multinode for those tests 22:29:06 and finally I am tracking what markmcclain is doing as far as nova network parity, in case help is needed 22:29:25 that's all I have this week 22:29:30 mlavalle: that's too bad I was actually hoping that would be a motivator to actually get someone to set up multinode soon 22:29:33 mlavalle: ok, thanks 22:29:45 does anyone have anything else to add on neutron testing? 22:29:56 mlavalle: do you know where we stand with a parallel full run 22:29:58 multinode will be needed for other scenarios, so I still see it as my cause 22:30:08 :-) 22:30:12 because I think we need to get that in before we start ramping up more tests? 22:30:22 agree 22:30:54 I can bug rossella_s and salv_orlando about that later though 22:31:01 ok 22:31:20 ok, if no one else has anything to discuss about neutron testing let's move on 22:31:55 #topic Bugs 22:32:21 so I haven't had a chance to look at the bug list lately, I imagine it's grown since our last bug day 22:32:33 but does anyone have any bugs they'd like to bring up 22:32:42 or anything else to talk about open bugs 22:33:36 not here, I just want to bug masayukig to take a look at my javelin patches - https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tempest+branch:master+topic:bp/javelin2,n,z :) 22:33:54 heh, ok well that's a good segway into the next topic 22:34:02 #topic Critical Reviews 22:34:20 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tempest+branch:master+topic:bp/javelin2,n,z 22:34:23 note, we discovered at summit that javelin wasn't doing what we thought 22:34:25 sdague: sure 22:34:29 yes someone look at those 22:34:37 just so sdague stops bugging me about it :) 22:34:48 so this is an attempt to do a rebuild that will live in tempest that we can call from grenade 22:34:50 :P 22:35:11 does anyone else have any reviews they'd like to get extra eyes on? 22:35:15 well, I'm antsy to start actually testing resources living across upgrades again... 22:35:47 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94203/ 22:37:11 afazekas: yeah that's probably a good fix 22:37:40 afazekas: can we simplify that code a bit, map filter, and 2 lambdas are kind of dense 22:38:26 sdague: basically it is copied from the same api test 22:38:27 what about computes = [x for x in hosts if x.service == 'compute'] 22:38:42 and then computes[0].host_name 22:38:53 afazekas: it's still pretty dense 22:38:59 ok 22:39:15 sdague: heh, I was fine with it, but that'll probably be a bit easier to read 22:39:23 ok are there any other reviews? 22:39:37 yeh, as someone that spent much of this week reading odd parts of tempest, I'm all for future readability 22:39:48 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92606/ 22:40:13 #link https://review.openstack.org/92519 22:40:28 the first should fix a periodic failure 22:40:29 +2 to the first one 22:40:38 and the second has just been sitting for a little bit 22:41:12 ok well if there aren't any other review, let's open the floor 22:41:12 the -1 on that one is probably fair, to respin the readme 22:41:53 sdague: oh I completely missed the -1 22:41:59 I only saw the +2 sorry 22:42:14 #topic Open Discussion 22:42:29 ok, does anyone have a topic they'd like to bring up that wasn't on the agenda 22:42:40 guys, please see sahara api tests https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90101/ 22:42:56 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90101/ 22:43:18 thanks :) 22:43:54 mtreinish: what about a preview of the mid cycle event? 22:44:05 oh yeah that's a good idea :) 22:44:11 what's your thinking for both bootstrapping days and the QA dedicated day? 22:44:21 vrovachev: :) 22:44:35 so for the bootstrapping days it's going to be an overview of both how infra works 22:44:41 and an explanation of tempest and grenade 22:44:48 #info QA / Infra Mid Cycle July 14 - 18 22:44:49 how they work etc... 22:45:08 for the dedicated qa day, I was thinking we either could have a day of f2f discussion 22:45:25 or if there was a topic we needed to work through we could have a hacking day 22:45:26 ok, would be interesting to get a rough agenda, even if it's just broken up by "morning / afternoon" topics across the days. 22:45:45 sdague: yeah I need to work with jeblair to get more details ironed out 22:45:49 coolio 22:46:09 I should also say the schedule I posted to the ML is tenantive 22:46:14 we might move things around a bit 22:46:17 ok 22:46:28 and steal a bootstrapping day for more qa stuff if we need it 22:46:39 well good to get that nailed down soon, as I expect people will be starting to sort out travel soon 22:47:01 for those who missed the post: 22:47:03 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-May/036262.html 22:47:09 The mid-cycle meet-up is interesting! But I need to talk my boss(es) to get the budget. 22:47:20 Germany is very far from Japan... 22:47:27 mlavalle: you're a boss now though :) 22:47:48 mtreinish: heh :) 22:48:28 also if anyone has suggestions on something they'd like to see for the mid-cycle, please ping me 22:49:00 ok are there any other topics to discuss? otherwise we'll end a little early today 22:50:03 heh, go to sleep :) in Russia 2.49 AM 22:50:23 ok, well I guess I'll call it for today 22:50:26 thanks everyone 22:50:33 #endmeeting