19:00:09 <catherineD> #startmeeting refstack 19:00:10 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Feb 28 19:00:09 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is catherineD. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:11 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 19:00:13 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'refstack' 19:04:38 <pvaneck> o/ 19:04:46 <catherineD> #link meeting agenda and notes, https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-17-02-28 19:04:50 <luzC> o/ 19:05:42 <catherineD> hello luzC: pvaneck: 19:06:09 <catherineD> I just ping mguiney: 19:06:19 <catherineD> let's start 19:06:50 <catherineD> #topic Pike PTG action items 19:06:57 <catherineD> #link Pike PTG action items ( https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-pike-ptg ) 19:07:46 <catherineD> For the Pike cycle ... our top 5 list are listed in the etherpad 19:09:14 <catherineD> pvaneck: catherineD: do I miss any other items? 19:09:27 <pvaneck> that about covers it 19:10:08 <catherineD> for today's meeting let's just concentrate on documentation ... 19:10:31 <catherineD> mguiney: hello here is the agenda https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-17-02-28 19:10:58 <catherineD> #topic Displaying RefStack documentation 19:11:01 <mguiney> hello! 19:12:11 <catherineD> this is one of the 5 items that we want to complete this cycle .. since mguiney: has started a spec we will discuss it today ... 19:13:04 <catherineD> but from priority point of view I think "Update existing certified data with the verified flag" should have higher priority .... 19:13:18 <catherineD> back to documentation .. 19:13:52 <catherineD> #link spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/437175/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438122/ 19:14:27 <catherineD> mguiney: should these be merged into one spec? 19:15:04 <mguiney> yes, i have been meaning to do so, and the second of the two has actually been added to the first as a patch 2 19:15:38 <mguiney> I just initially made a workflow error which resulted in the second spec 19:16:17 <catherineD> yea we have all been there ... done worry about it ... 19:16:58 <catherineD> see your patch 2 ... in that case let's abandon https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438122/ ? 19:17:17 <luzC> ++ I haven't review the spec... but just as a heads up, sphinx is build into refstack 19:17:46 <catherineD> luzC: yup that is what we need to discuss today 19:18:04 <catherineD> let's go through what we have today .. 19:18:23 <catherineD> so most of the RefStack document are in RST format .. 19:18:26 <mguiney> that sounds good, yes 19:18:53 <luzC> if you run "tox -e docs" a man and html versions are created from the .rst formats... 19:19:11 <catherineD> and as luzC: indicates sphinx is build into RefStack so we do have a way to convert to html 19:19:53 <luzC> command will create folder "build/sphinx/html" 19:21:02 <catherineD> luzC: as pvaneck: pointed out these are full-fledged html with several js and css dependencies . 19:21:14 <pvaneck> i was thinking of having the rsts converted into something more basic that can be brought in as angular templates in the UI 19:21:37 <catherineD> and if we want to host that at the RefStack website .. the look and feel maybe different too 19:22:34 <pvaneck> so will need to investigate if docutils (which sphinx uses to convert) can do a more basic html conversion 19:23:16 <catherineD> pvaneck: ++ 19:24:32 <catherineD> I think luzC: had organized the rst doc structure well that if we can do a more basic html conversion to match RefStack site's look&feel then it would be good 19:24:59 <luzC> pvaneck ok, I guess it should be possible by changing sphinx config file... as you said, need further investigation 19:25:19 <pvaneck> luzC, right, i will look into it 19:25:22 <catherineD> the only concern I have is if we do so ... these will be RefStack specific and we will need to support the code .. and we deviate from the normal way OpenStack projects do docs 19:25:51 <catherineD> if it is just config then it may not be that bad 19:27:16 <luzC> catherineD yes, I think the first path is to investigate about the configuration within sphinx, as second option have static html files... just for maintainability would be better to have the same source files 19:27:52 <catherineD> #agreed pvaneck: will investigate whether docutils can be used for more basic html to match RefStack site's look&feel 19:28:20 <catherineD> luzC: + 19:29:04 <catherineD> let's revisit this after pvaneck: 's investigation ... 19:29:57 <catherineD> mguiney: just a note --> currently, it is possible to access RefStack docs from the RefStack website https://refstack.openstack.org/#/about 19:30:06 <luzC> one tool I used in the past for file conversion is "pandoc" but don't remember the output or license constraints 19:30:48 <catherineD> however, these are in RST format ... what we want is html for a better look and feel 19:31:36 <catherineD> luzC: do you know whether the doc team is usng sphinx? 19:31:43 <hogepodge> o/ sorry I'm so late, conflicting meeting 19:32:17 <mguiney> catherineD: the goal was to get across the idea that it reroutes you to the rst docs, rather than having the docs available natively. I can update the wording to better reflect this, if needed 19:32:50 <mguiney> "natively" meaning what you mentioned, in html 19:33:03 <catherineD> mguiney: yea 19:33:51 <luzC> catherineD I'm not sure but I can investigate how documentation is doing it 19:33:52 <catherineD> mguiney: thx 19:34:03 <catherineD> luzC: that would be great thx 19:34:36 <catherineD> I would really want us to avoid one-of implementation if possible .. 19:34:57 <mguiney> i will get right on that 19:35:16 <catherineD> but sometime it may not make sense ... 19:35:24 <catherineD> mguiney: thx again! 19:36:04 <catherineD> so I guess we will revisit this topic next week so that mguiney: can update the spec based on the findings 19:36:37 <catherineD> any other thoughts on this topic? 19:37:58 <catherineD> hearing none .. let's moving on to the next topic .. 19:38:19 <catherineD> #topic Open discussion 19:39:08 <catherineD> #topic Update existing certified data with the verified flag 19:39:37 <pvaneck> yea, posted some notes on what API calls will be needed for that 19:39:38 <catherineD> hogepodge: mguiney: I think this should have higher priority 19:39:59 <catherineD> pvaneck: great thank you 19:40:23 <catherineD> since we are still waiting for the investigation results for the doc spec ... 19:41:07 <catherineD> hogepodge: mguiney: are you OK to start this work? 19:41:51 <mguiney> I have been looking into it, and was actually going to ask about the API calls today 19:41:58 <mguiney> so that is awesome timing 19:42:05 <catherineD> mguiney: perfect .. 19:42:19 <catherineD> pvaneck: can read our minds :-) 19:42:53 <hogepodge> we're meeting later today and can talk about it then too. 19:43:16 <catherineD> since this may be an one time effort ... does the team think we need spec or just go right into implementation ? 19:43:51 <pvaneck> dont think a spec is needed 19:44:09 <catherineD> pvaneck: ++ 19:45:29 <catherineD> I think those tools may be useful later too so may be they can reside in the refstack/tools directory .. 19:46:27 <hogepodge> for a one-off, a spec may be overkill. we should do careful code review without a spec, since this will touch the database 19:46:47 <catherineD> hogepodge: ++ 19:47:35 <catherineD> hogepodge: when we do the test run .. we may want to do it on a small number of record to begin with ... we also want to take a backup before that 19:47:44 <hogepodge> catherineD: ++ 19:48:09 * mguiney nods 19:48:14 <catherineD> mguiney: do you have a test RefStack Server to test with ? we can work with you to build one 19:48:37 <catherineD> in your env ... of course we will test in ours too 19:48:41 <mguiney> my thought wasto perhaps run it on a dummy database until we can be sure it is safe to run 19:49:12 <mguiney> and yes, i do have a refstack server instance set up for this 19:49:44 <catherineD> mguiney: yup .. for us to test ... we will need the format of your original data that hogepodge: gave you .. we will create our test file to run the test 19:49:57 <catherineD> mguiney: that is great .. 19:50:42 <mguiney> that would make sense 19:51:35 <mguiney> the db running on my refstack server is not currently populated with test data, but when that is populated, that will be more possible 19:51:57 <mguiney> although i may very well be misunderstanding what you need 19:53:44 <catherineD> yea we need both the anonymois data record in the database. We also need a set of links that represent the verified data ... 19:54:34 <mguiney> makes sense. i will supply those as soon as possible 19:55:26 <catherineD> we just need the format .. like if it is a spreadsheet with colume names etc 19:57:21 <mguiney> I believe that that is the format, but I will be meeting with hogepodge later, so i will confirm details then 19:57:22 <catherineD> any other comments 19:57:38 <catherineD> mguiney: yup thx 19:58:34 <catherineD> I think we can close up for the day .. 19:59:06 <catherineD> thanks everyone 19:59:12 <luzC> bye 19:59:13 <catherineD> bye! 19:59:25 <catherineD> #endmeeting