17:01:37 #startmeeting qa 17:01:37 Meeting started Thu Jul 16 17:01:37 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mtreinish. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:01:38 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:01:40 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 17:01:45 hi, who's here today? 17:01:53 o/ 17:02:19 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting#Proposed_Agenda_for_July_16th_2015_.281700_UTC.29 17:02:23 ^^^ today's agenda 17:02:44 dkranz, mkoderer, sdague, dtroyer_zz, afazekas: around? 17:02:53 o/ 17:03:28 mtreinish: o/ amazingly enough 17:03:29 o/ 17:03:42 dtroyer_zz: you're not asleep? :) 17:03:55 but I'm at the tire place so might have to leave mid way through meeting 17:03:59 I wish I was… znc is confused 17:04:00 ok, let's get started 17:04:07 sdague: heh, sure np 17:04:16 #topic New meeting time poll (mtreinish) 17:04:36 so I just wanted to throw a reminder on here that the poll to reschedule the alternate timeslot for this meeting is still open 17:04:41 #link http://doodle.com/eykyptgi3ca3r9mk 17:05:01 if you have an opinion on when that should be scheduled feel free to vote 17:05:29 I'm probably going to close the poll early next week, because next week's meeting will be at the new time 17:05:55 o/ 17:06:14 ok is there anything else on this? Otherwsie we can move on 17:06:52 #topic Specs Review 17:07:02 ok does anyone have any open specs reviews to discuss? 17:07:12 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/qa-specs,n,z 17:07:53 dkranz: oh, that non-admin tempest spec is still open. Do we still need a spec/bp for that? 17:08:12 mtreinish: I don't think so. It was basically done, perhaps not exactly in the same way. 17:08:40 dkranz: ok, cool I'll abandon it then and close the bp 17:08:47 dkranz: unless you wanted to take care of that? 17:09:04 mtreinish: I don't care, but we could mark it as Done rather than abandoned 17:09:18 mtreinish: not that it matters much 17:09:32 mtreinish: I'll abandon it 17:09:37 ok, I'll leave it up to you :) 17:09:54 are there any other specs to discuss? Otherwise let's move on 17:11:05 #topic Blueprints 17:11:25 does anyone have any in progress BPs they'd like to discuss? 17:12:39 well I wanted to bring up the tempest cli improvements one and the tempest external plugin bp 17:13:07 for the cli improvements work dpaterson and I have been testing the patches up: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tempest+branch:master+topic:bp/tempest-cli-improvements,n,z 17:13:23 it looks like tempest init works fine, but tempest run still needs a lot of work 17:13:50 mtreinish: still a WIP in progress for me. The init had one defect which we discussed but still working with run 17:14:13 fwiw, you can still use init with just testr or ostestr and it works fine 17:14:25 since run clearly doesn't work yet :) 17:14:36 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tempest+branch:master+topic:bp/tempest-cli-improvements,n,z 17:15:18 dpaterson: oh, right I still need to push a fix for that path bug in tempest init 17:15:27 dpaterson: can you leave a -1 vote on the review to remind me 17:15:43 mtreinish: okay 17:15:46 thanks 17:16:09 the other BP I wanted to bring up was the tempest external plugin interface 17:16:24 the base patches for that have landed already and mkoderer has been testing it on the manila side 17:16:48 he found a couple of bugs which the fixes have already landed for 17:17:01 so at this point the external test loading is working with the plugin interface 17:17:15 cool! :) 17:17:21 mtreinish: huge! 17:17:26 the next step is to work on the config registration piece: 17:17:28 #link https://review.openstack.org/197749 17:17:33 yeah it's exciting 17:17:43 mkoderer is working on getting the manila tests to use it all 17:18:00 #link https://review.openstack.org/201955 17:18:47 mtreinish: is there anything to be done about extra requirements? Are they installed as part of the plugin installation? 17:18:59 andreaf: they'll be handled as part of the plugin installation 17:19:10 since for tempest to know about the plugin you need to install it 17:19:20 otherwise the entry point won't be registered 17:19:39 using entry points and stevedore for this actually end up simplifying a lot of problems like that 17:20:01 mtreinish nice :) 17:20:53 are there any other BPs to discuss? otherwise let's move on 17:21:24 yes I wanted to mention the ssh-bp 17:21:40 #link http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/qa-specs/specs/tempest/ssh-auth-strategy.html 17:22:20 so the implementation of the common bits has made really good progress I think - the last patch just failed the gate :( but hopefully a recheck it's all is needed 17:23:06 next steps are either try and enable validation in the gate, or make a non-voting job with validation on 17:23:22 andreaf: cool, it'll be nice to see this finishing up soon 17:23:23 and then start migrating all tests to use the common bits 17:23:24 andreaf: has the deprecation of the old options started? 17:23:32 mtreinish: yes it has 17:23:43 mtreinish: where possible 17:23:59 ok, because those are still causing confusion for some people 17:24:21 it'll be nice to have that all simplified and common 17:24:25 any preference about the way to go? I tend towards a non-voting job so we can check stability for a while 17:24:42 before turning validation on in the gate 17:24:56 andreaf: I'm fine with making it non-voting to start I guess 17:25:11 we dropped the icehouse jobs recently so we're running a few less jobs then before 17:25:15 so adding one doesn't hurt 17:25:17 as much... 17:25:28 ok cool 17:26:36 ok, let's move on 17:26:39 #topic Devstack 17:26:55 dtroyer_zz: so anything exciting for devstack this week? 17:27:17 not much from me… 17:27:34 we have been working through jamielennox's series of patches to switch everything to Identity v3 17:27:34 ok 17:27:47 taking it slowly to adjust as we go 17:28:13 also, cdent has the removel of ceilometer to a plugin WIP 17:28:51 dtroyer_zz: that's still partially blocked on getting the grenade side working iirc right? 17:29:02 I think that is where he is, yes 17:29:24 ok cool 17:29:30 that's it from me… sdague, anything to add? 17:29:50 dtroyer_zz: sdague had to drop 17:30:00 ok, I missed him leaving 17:30:14 he sent me a hangout msg about it :) 17:30:32 ok does anyone else have something to discuss on devstack? 17:31:48 #topic Grenade 17:32:00 ok does anyone have any updates on grenade? 17:32:35 sdague wanted me to mention that we got a successful run of grenade multinode in the gate this morning 17:32:46 which is a big step 17:32:51 woot! 17:33:00 there are still some bugs, but it's moving along 17:33:09 the patch is here: 17:33:11 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199091/ 17:33:53 that's all I had :) 17:34:00 is there anything else on grenade? 17:34:53 ok, lets move on 17:35:01 #topic Bugs 17:35:11 does anyone have anything to discuss on bugs this week? 17:35:17 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Tempest-bug-report 17:35:34 err I guess that link is still from last week 17:35:41 andreaf: did you see my email about the failing periodic non-admin jobs? (no bug ticket) 17:36:13 andreaf: about how admin_domain_name is needed even for non-admin keystone tests? 17:36:24 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/069506.html 17:36:28 dkranz, andreaf: ^^^ 17:36:43 andreaf: v3 that is. I;d like your input before I push a fix 17:36:48 dkranz: ok that sounds like a bug 17:37:04 andreaf: yes, it is described in the email 17:37:19 andreaf: you even anticipated it :) 17:37:39 andreaf: you can answer offline in the email 17:38:15 dkranz: will do, thanks for bringing it up 17:38:22 dkranz: you also had the triage rotation this week, was there anything that stood out? 17:39:18 mtreinish: oops 17:39:31 hehe, no worries :) 17:39:38 mtreinish: I was so buried coming back I forgot. Will take care of it tomorrow 17:39:44 mtreinish: there are a bunch of new ones 17:39:57 ok 17:40:50 ok, let's move on 17:40:55 #topic Critical Reviews 17:41:14 does anyone have a review they'd like to get extra eyes on? 17:41:15 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191978/ 17:41:29 please :) 17:41:40 dpaterson: man, I'm terrible I forget about that every week 17:41:46 mtreinish: I gave it a +2 before but was rebased 17:42:23 mtreinish: The potential controversial thing is that it now only allows cleanup with test accounts 17:42:40 mtreinish: but it never really worked with tenant isolation and I'm not sure it really can 17:42:55 dkranz: well now that we prefix all created resources names it can 17:42:58 but that's a separate patch 17:43:20 I definitely think having support for test-accounts is a good thing 17:43:36 mtreinish: but what it a tenant goes away but leaves stuff behind? 17:44:09 dkranz. mtreinsh: if prefix implementation fixes original isolation issues I can revisit 17:44:21 dkranz: well the resources will still be prefixed so if we can find and delete them as admin (which we can't with everything just some) we can 17:44:31 dkranz: it should still be an opt in flag, like --prefix-cleanup 17:44:35 mtreinish: right, but there are some we can't 17:44:36 and then load the prefix value from config 17:44:46 mtreinish: yes, it can partially work 17:44:53 dkranz: there's nothing we can do about that, short of filing a bug with the project and fixing it there 17:45:01 some objects not globally scoped right? So admin cannot see them, only deleted tenents 17:45:09 dpaterson: right 17:45:19 that will still be an issue. 17:45:30 But once test accounts become the norm perhaps isolation will only be used for throw-away cloueds 17:45:52 dpaterson: right, but that's also a problem for every user not just tempest 17:46:07 there were some ml threads about the issue a while ago, I'm not sure what happened to them though 17:46:48 mtreinish: yeah, 17:47:17 mtreinish: we can re-enable isolatoin with prefixes later I think 17:47:58 dkranz: right adding support to the cleanup tool todo prefixed resource deletion is a separate thing 17:48:07 ok, are there any other patches to bring up? 17:49:15 heh, I guess not 17:49:25 let's open the floor then 17:49:28 #topic Open Discussion 17:49:43 mid-cycle meetup: any plans for where and when yet? 17:50:11 I'm getting dings from bossmen about projected travel expenses for the year. 17:50:27 dpaterson: so I'm looking at 2 options right now either the week of aug 10th or Sept. 10th 17:50:42 most likely at hp in ft collins 17:51:03 I'm leaning towards the sept. one because it gives us a bit more time for planning and travel approval 17:51:31 mtreinish: +1 for sept, tix will be expensive for aug 10th 17:51:41 mtreinish: Tokyo is only six weeks after that :) 17:52:08 so 3/4 cycle 17:52:09 dkranz: heh, yeah it's more another end of cycle like what we did in ny :) 17:52:14 we could meet a few days ealier in Tokyo and do the mid cycle there :D 17:52:40 :) 17:52:41 go to Nikko and code around the temples 17:53:19 mtreinish: I don't recall If I mentioned here yet or not, but I'll be out most of August after back surgery on the 28th of this month… 17:53:31 andreaf: hah, I'm not opposed to doing that, except I'm probably going to be vacationing in Japan after summit 17:53:46 dtroyer_zz: oh, well more reason to do sept :) 17:54:19 ok, I'll try to plan something for sept and I'll take it to the ML after I have a room reserved and stuff in motion 17:54:49 don't do Sept just because of me…I may not be travle ready by then anyway 17:55:09 dtroyer_zz: it's not just you, other people have expressed a preference for sept over aug too 17:55:20 ok, good 17:55:55 #action mtreinish to try and organize a midcycle/end-of-cycle for week of sept 10 17:56:09 ok with ~5min left is there anything to discuss? 17:57:05 ok, then let's end here 17:57:09 thanks everyone 17:57:13 #endmeeting