17:01:24 #startmeeting qa 17:01:28 Meeting started Thu Aug 3 17:01:24 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is andreaf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:01:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:01:31 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 17:02:06 Hello who's here for the meeting today? 17:02:08 o/ 17:02:26 o/ 17:02:46 o/ 17:02:58 o/ 17:03:02 o/ 17:03:17 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting#Agenda_for_August_3rd_2017_.281700_UTC.29 Today's agenda 17:03:57 welcome everyone 17:04:00 let's start 17:04:28 #topic Previous Meeting Action review 17:04:54 #action gmann to send ML for upcoming removal of deprecated interfaces and its affect on stable branches 17:05:09 This one an action from past week - still tbd I think ^^^ 17:05:25 #topic PTG 17:05:42 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/qa-queens-ptg 17:06:11 For the PTG day 3 to 5 I asked for a room for 10 to 12 people 17:06:53 but it would be good to be able to know roughly who's going to be there, so if you will or perhaps will please add your name to the etherpad 17:07:55 Also please add proposals for discussion to the etherpad so that we may come up with a plan / schedule 17:08:07 it's best to have that so we can try to avoid conflicts as much as possible 17:08:30 the earlier the ideas for discussion the better we can prepare for them as well :) 17:09:57 one last thing, for the first two days we need volunteers to run the help hours and/or help out with the proposed sessions - so if you are available please add your name there 17:10:19 so again we can try to make a schedule that avoid conflicts with SIG sessions in other rooms 17:10:42 questions / comments? 17:11:19 sounds straightforward enough 17:11:26 * mtreinish added some things to the etherpad 17:11:36 thanks 17:12:06 ah yes stestr is a good one :) 17:13:02 ok moving on 17:13:15 #topic Gate stability 17:13:25 Nothing special to report on my side 17:14:14 #topic Specs Reviews 17:14:24 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/qa-specs,n,z 17:14:39 andreaf: well I was going to point out our low classification rate: http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/data/integrated_gate.html 17:14:50 you went to quickly on that topic... 17:14:58 mtreinish: eh sorry 17:15:07 #undo 17:15:08 Removing item from minutes: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/qa-specs,n,z 17:15:11 also we just updated the method used to consume our pypi mirror (reverse proxy rather than webserver with "local" data from afs) 17:15:17 #topic Specs Reviews 17:15:43 #topic Gate stability 17:15:51 so maybe I get it right... 17:16:03 so uh let us know if you see any weirdness related to installing packages in devstack-gate jobs 17:16:11 (I'm hoping it makes things more reliable and quicker though) 17:16:21 clarkb: ok will keep an eye on that 17:17:35 mtreinish: regarding the low classification rate I tried to get help with https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/pike-gate-issue-categotisation but it was not very successful 17:18:00 perhaps I should lead the way spending some time on that myself 17:18:28 clarkb: I haven't seen anything noticeable on the pip side so far 17:18:37 which is probably a good sign 17:19:03 andreaf: heh, yeah lead the way :) 17:19:58 I also added a session proposal in the etherpad about monitoring the SUT overtime 17:20:52 like graphing the memory footprint of services, the total amount it takes for devstack and tests (that we do already) and perhaps other key indicators 17:21:08 so we can see changes that introduce a large deviation 17:21:17 and also we can monitor small changes over time 17:21:59 it's a very rough idea so far I'll try to put down something more concrete, and get comments before the PTG 17:22:10 I think it could be a qa + infra effort 17:22:17 mtreinish: ya and once e-r catches up we'll have good data on whether or not it is more reliable 17:22:30 andreaf: a historical graph across runs? 17:22:56 clarkb: heh, yeah. Assuming I can ever manage to push a patch to the worker without a syntax error :) 17:23:00 mtreinish: yes or at least a current value for rolling average to use as comparison with the current run 17:25:03 ok moving on 17:25:13 #topic Spec Reviews 17:25:19 for real this time 17:26:06 probably open specs should be either discussed at the PTG or closed 17:26:40 I want to do a spec / bp cleanup before the PTG to make sure we have a good picture of what we want to work on in there 17:26:58 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/qa-specs,n,z 17:27:10 anything on specs? 17:27:52 andreaf: a spec cleanup? there are only 6 :) 17:28:40 mtreinish: heh ok 17:28:44 mtreinish: but we have many blueprints 17:29:46 ok moving on 17:29:50 #topic Tempest 17:30:45 martinkopec: thanks for running bug triage this week 17:30:50 martinkopec: anything to report? 17:31:10 andreaf, yes, I found few bugs|reviews which need a little attention 17:31:16 I wrote them to the report 17:31:18 #link 17:31:27 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tempest-weekly-bug-report 17:31:47 they are longer time unnoticed 17:32:20 ok, thanks for finding / pointing these out 17:33:03 I just went through In progress bugs and checked If they are still valid .. so this is all from my side 17:33:30 thank you 17:33:51 anything else on tempest? 17:33:52 martinkopec: cool, thanks. I saw a bunch of bug updates from you go by on my lp mail folder this morning 17:34:02 andreaf: I had one patch to discuss 17:34:04 one sec 17:34:17 #link https://review.openstack.org/364414 17:34:28 that's been something that's been broken for >1 yr 17:35:05 I'm trying to figure out how to make it move again 17:35:46 mtreinish: ok I haven't checked that patch in a long time 17:36:48 it fell through the cracks when I wasn't working last fall 17:36:54 mtreinish: is it ready for review from your POV? I had some comments on PS#6 - I haven't check #9 I will do tomorrow 17:37:07 and I feel kinda bad, because we have a bunch of users who want the proxy support 17:37:20 well it needs to be rebased again, but I think it's ready for review after I take care of that 17:38:02 mtreinish: ok sure we should be able to finish that work quickly - I'm not opposed to it at all 17:38:33 I only had a couple of technical issues to be fixed 17:39:20 thanks for pointing that out 17:39:29 anything else on tempest? 17:39:54 I'm still trying to get the work on stable clients.py finished 17:40:13 sorry I meant stable test.py 17:40:19 which requires clients.py as well 17:40:36 there was good progress but still a few things missing 17:40:50 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/484384 I would like opinions on this one 17:41:18 * mtreinish still can't believe the cred providers are in lib 17:41:23 that was like 2 years in the making 17:41:46 mtreinish: thanks for pushing that forward! 17:41:57 mtreinish: that warrants a success tag in IRC :) 17:42:21 andreaf: is there any advantage to doing that? It's not like initing a client object has any api traffic 17:43:02 mtreinish: the advantage is to expose hidden dependencies in tests to specific API versions or services which are not explicitly declared 17:44:26 how so? it fails with an exception on calling the object vs failing on the wire for a non-existent api version 17:44:32 it fails in both cases 17:45:41 mtreinish: if we just change tempest configuration we can find such cases, even if the version is actually running 17:46:17 heh, personally that seems like a pretty far out edge case. But we can discuss it more after the meeting 17:46:38 mtreinish: but I see your point, it's not a strong need for that 17:47:06 mtreinish: in the past we had the glance client doing API calls at __init__ time but we fixed that long time ago 17:47:35 yeah, that was a really long time ago. We fixed that as part of making tempest import safe for discovery 17:47:56 must be like 4 yrs ago now 17:48:05 * mtreinish can't believe its been that long 17:48:18 heh 17:48:22 the other bit I need to make stable is validation_resources 17:48:47 but I would like to avouid refactoring that - I think simply removing dependencies from CONF should be enough 17:49:09 if it has unit tests and docs, that's probably fine then 17:49:09 I will prepare the patch - hopefully there are no strong objections to that 17:49:47 mtreinish: yeah I know the unit tests are probably missing I'll see what I can do 17:50:22 ok time is running out 17:50:27 next topic? 17:50:35 #topic Patrole 17:50:46 anything to be discussed on patrole? 17:51:17 3... 17:51:21 2.. 17:51:27 1. 17:51:34 #topic Critical Reviews 17:51:53 Any review that requires urgent attention? 17:51:58 beside what discussed already? 17:52:42 ok I guess not 17:52:47 #topic Open Discussion 17:54:05 ok. thanks everyone for joining the meeting today 17:54:15 #endmeeting