19:06:34 <SotK> #startmeeting storyboard
19:06:35 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Sep 26 19:06:34 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SotK. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:06:36 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:06:38 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'storyboard'
19:06:50 <diablo_rojo> Hello
19:07:18 <diablo_rojo> fatema_ doesn't seem to be online
19:07:22 <diablo_rojo> fungi around?
19:07:29 <SotK> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/StoryBoard#Agenda_for_next_meeting Agenda
19:07:55 <SotK> I don't think we have anything to announce so I'll go straight onto migration updates unless someone shouts fast
19:07:56 <fungi> ohai
19:08:07 <diablo_rojo> No one migrated that I know of
19:08:13 <SotK> #topic Migration Updates
19:08:57 <diablo_rojo> So I did a migration of Oslo and somehow there was a difference in stories in sb and what existed in lp.
19:09:18 <diablo_rojo> Part of it was that I didn't migrate oslo-incubator intentionally.
19:09:40 <diablo_rojo> The other part I think is that I migrated 'stevedore' instead of 'python-stevedore'
19:09:52 <diablo_rojo> Which I have now migrated.
19:10:15 <diablo_rojo> In the ML thread bnemec also noted that there were others missing though which I am trying to chase down atm
19:11:06 <clarkb> did the incomplete state bugs end up being ignored too?
19:11:12 <clarkb> (that was one theory I saw go by)
19:12:04 <fungi> they're not normally skipped
19:12:18 <diablo_rojo> I double checked the script and they are not being ignored.
19:12:39 <diablo_rojo> #link https://github.com/openstack-infra/storyboard/blob/master/storyboard/migrate/launchpad/reader.py Migration Reader
19:12:59 <diablo_rojo> Incomplete with and without response are both being migrated
19:15:42 <diablo_rojo> What would be helpful is getting an accurate count on how many bugs actually exist in lp and how many stories exist in sb
19:17:08 <SotK> hm, a quick test of navigating to those 3 bugs in bnemec's email directly using the ID shows they are migrated fine
19:17:31 <diablo_rojo> SotK, perhaps he couldn't find them for some reason.
19:17:49 <diablo_rojo> You want to reply with links? And I will reply about my stevedore/python-stevedore mishap?
19:17:50 <bnemec> This could be related to the fact that the merged and invalid check boxes do nothing for me.
19:18:07 <bnemec> Maybe the incomplete bugs are not showing in the active list.
19:18:20 <bnemec> That could explain a lot of the disparity in numbers.
19:18:22 <diablo_rojo> bnemec, that would make sense
19:18:23 <diablo_rojo> Yeah
19:18:26 <SotK> diablo_rojo: sure
19:18:35 <SotK> yeah, actually they're all invalid
19:18:43 <SotK> that would explain it
19:18:44 <diablo_rojo> bnemec, I think we are tracking things down though.
19:19:04 <fungi> i wonder why the filtering checkboxes aren't working. what browser?
19:19:09 * SotK recommends using https://storyboard-dev.openstack.org/#!/story/list over the project groups view in general
19:19:22 <diablo_rojo> fungi, they don't work in chrome and bnemec was using ff
19:19:58 <SotK> they cause a request for stories to be sent, just not the right request for some reason
19:20:10 <SotK> (they always browse for active stories, no matter their state)
19:20:15 <fungi> oh, interesting. they used to work fine for me in firefox
19:20:22 <diablo_rojo> 2061 stories that way
19:20:23 <fungi> did they break recently?
19:20:33 <diablo_rojo> and there are 2843 in lp
19:20:41 <SotK> must've done somehow, they used to work fine for me too
19:21:07 <diablo_rojo> So lp minus oslo incubator..napkin math says everything is there bnemec
19:21:38 <bnemec> diablo_rojo: Okay, cool.
19:21:44 <fungi> yeah, https://storyboard-dev.openstack.org/#!/story/list?project_group_id=74 gets me a reasonable count
19:22:18 <diablo_rojo> Coolio.
19:22:22 <diablo_rojo> Mysteries solved.
19:22:35 <diablo_rojo> But the project group checkboxes are still broken.
19:24:34 <diablo_rojo> #link https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2003883 Broken Checkboxes Story
19:24:34 <fungi> i wonder if those regressed with the project-group name url work
19:24:43 <diablo_rojo> fungi, yeah that was my thought as well
19:24:50 <diablo_rojo> Hadn't dug into that yet
19:26:44 <diablo_rojo> I imagine its a pretty small fix though
19:26:53 <SotK> most likely it will be yeah
19:27:13 <fungi> even deselecting all three still shows active stories. wow
19:27:53 <SotK> indeed, its like its not seeing any state changes for some reason
19:28:10 <diablo_rojo> Other than currently running a Neutron migration. I think that's all for migration updates.
19:28:32 <SotK> nice, thanks :)
19:28:37 <SotK> #topic In Progress Work
19:29:11 <SotK> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack-infra/storyboard-webclient+status:open
19:29:16 <SotK> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack-infra/storyboard+status:open
19:29:29 <SotK> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack-infra/python-storyboardclient+status:open
19:30:05 <diablo_rojo> I have two patches out (one of which failed lint) that would be cool to get some eyes on
19:30:21 <diablo_rojo> One we talked about at the PTG-- the adding 1k as a preference
19:30:33 <diablo_rojo> for page size
19:31:57 <dhellmann> I could use some eyes on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/604653/, which should set things up for fatema to be able to continue the work we discussed earlier about moving validation out of the db layer and into the API layer
19:32:49 <diablo_rojo> dhellmann, I can take a look today
19:32:59 <fungi> finally getting around to fiddling with linking task footers from gerrit via its-storyboard configuration today, i think
19:33:13 <dhellmann> diablo_rojo : thanks
19:33:22 * SotK intends to do some review soon too, I'll put that sqlite patch at the top since I've already briefly looked at it
19:33:26 <SotK> fungi: nice
19:33:33 <dhellmann> I'm also interested in looking at the search query language thing. Has anyone started thinking about that already?
19:33:38 <dhellmann> SotK : thanks
19:33:53 <fungi> dhellmann: as in like figuring out how to swap in something like a lucene parser?
19:34:33 <dhellmann> at the ptg we talked about using a syntax similar to gerrit and I figured that would just need to be turned into the search fields we have already
19:34:44 <dhellmann> I wasn't thinking about replacing the search backend
19:35:00 <SotK> I've not given it any more detailed thought than I had at the PTG really, but that was my broad intention too
19:35:04 <diablo_rojo> dhellmann, its all yours :)
19:35:12 <diablo_rojo> I don't think anyone has started on it yet
19:35:34 <SotK> (converting some text into something like our existing stuff, except supporting logical operators)
19:35:35 <dhellmann> ok, well, it's sort of behind the stove rather than on the back burner, so don't block on me showing up and doing it but if I find time I'm interested
19:35:47 <fungi> ahh. i think gerrit uses lucene. but maybe you were suggesting more like just altering some of the token syntax to be similar?
19:36:05 <diablo_rojo> Yeah I wouldn't go changing the search backend, just the language to interact with it.
19:36:07 <dhellmann> SotK : I was going to do that on the python side of the API, but I may need some help with ensuring the JS side passes the string through in a useful way
19:36:16 <dhellmann> fungi : yeah
19:36:53 <dhellmann> like being able to say project:openstack-infra/storyboard is:open message:"a bunch of text"
19:37:07 <SotK> yeah, on the python side is where I was imagining it to happen, it should be pretty simple to get the webclient to pass it through
19:37:14 <dhellmann> ok, cool
19:38:03 <persia> Will enabing that end up disabling the pop-up menu selection, or would that be modified to use the new syntax?
19:38:38 <dhellmann> I was going to try to make it backwards compatible if we could but I haven't looked at how hard that might be
19:39:46 <persia> I was thinking more from a UI perspective, like whether when one typed syntactic searches, the interface would replace with widgets, etc.  Well, that, and whether the docs about "select type from the list" and similar need to be updated.
19:40:08 <persia> I don't think there is any reason to make special effort to preserve support for two different query syntacies
19:40:22 <SotK> I was envisioning keeping the pop-up menu as it is (and converting to the new syntax behind the scenes), but supporting a way to switch to a "type in your query" mode at first at least
19:40:22 <dhellmann> that would certainly make it easier
19:40:47 <dhellmann> sure, an "advanced" button might be a reasonable way to start
19:40:55 <persia> That seems a sensible plan
19:40:56 <SotK> the existing implementation is already basically in the form `field: value` anyway
19:41:44 <persia> I'm opposed to the idea of an "advanced" button, because think that is a harmful concept, but if that's the only way to get "type in your query" syntax, it might work (with different text).
19:43:18 <dhellmann> sure
19:43:55 <SotK> I'm not strongly attached to the idea, I just want the experience of using it to be better than my experience of typing in Gerrit's search box when I didn't know the syntax
19:43:59 <persia> I think ideally the goal should be similar to gerrit, where one can type syntax or not (and get hints either way).  I don't know if that's easily doable though, and I think something is better than nothing.
19:44:00 <dhellmann> I don't know how hard it would be to make the existing field say "I don't know what this is, I'll pass it to the API and let it figure it out" but if we can do that in one field without the user having to turn it on that seems best
19:44:19 <dhellmann> and yeah, making the search syntax discoverable would be good
19:44:44 <diablo_rojo> +2
19:45:16 <diablo_rojo> I had started writing some docs on the syntax for the search, but it seems it might be better to wait and work on something else.
19:45:23 <dhellmann> converting the grouping and logic into the backend query will be an interesting challenge
19:49:01 <SotK> it should be pretty easy to have an "I don't understand this thing" field I think, we already have a catch-all which is treated as "search for this in titles/descriptions"
19:49:29 <dhellmann> ah, cool, so we can piggy-back on that
19:49:55 <SotK> we should be able to yeah
19:50:19 <SotK> anything else in progress?
19:50:39 <diablo_rojo> I had thought about unearthing/making use of this board I found the other day: https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/board/1
19:51:23 <diablo_rojo> Would be cool to kind of keep track of the focuses of the team in a way other than looking at open reviews.
19:51:55 <SotK> +1
19:51:57 <diablo_rojo> Haven't gone through and overhauled it yet cause I wanted to get the okay from you SotK first.
19:51:59 <diablo_rojo> Coolio
19:52:16 <diablo_rojo> I'll see how pretty I can make it by next week.
19:52:31 <SotK> I'll add you to it
19:52:47 <diablo_rojo> I also had kind of be going through all of our open stories and trying to gauge whether it had been fixed/if we needed more info/trying to add tags, etc
19:52:55 <diablo_rojo> Awesome thanks SotK!
19:53:06 <SotK> you should be able to do things to it now
19:53:26 <diablo_rojo> Coolio. Any preferences for how you want things to stay?
19:53:45 <diablo_rojo> I'll probably keep the lanes the same.
19:54:34 <SotK> no preferences really, though I do somewhat like the current lane setup
19:55:10 <diablo_rojo> Yeah I am all for the Kanban style. Its more contents that would change.
19:55:55 * diablo_rojo envisions backlog, doing, and done to be stories and review to hold tasks that have patches out for review
19:56:54 <SotK> that sounds sensible enough to me
19:57:23 <diablo_rojo> Awesome. I'll play around with that at some point before next week
19:57:54 <SotK> thanks!
19:58:00 <diablo_rojo> No problem :)
19:59:42 <SotK> ok then, we're about out of time
19:59:46 <SotK> thanks for coming folks!
19:59:48 <fungi> thanks SotK!
19:59:55 <diablo_rojo> thanks SotK!
19:59:57 <SotK> #endmeeting