18:00:19 <amrith> #startmeeting trove 18:00:20 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Sep 14 18:00:19 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is amrith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:21 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:00:25 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'trove' 18:00:28 <songjian> o/ 18:00:30 <mvandijk> ./ yo 18:00:40 <aliadil> o/ 18:00:40 <amrith> courtesy ping to attendees peterstac johnma dougshelley66 pmalik vgnbkr mvandijk trevormc aliadil spilla songjian trevormc apsarshaik 18:00:48 <pmalik> 😝/ 18:00:55 <amrith> if your name isn't in the list above, please add it to the list in the meeting agenda page ... 18:00:57 <amrith> hello! 18:01:00 <johnma> o/ 18:01:12 <spilla> o/ 18:01:33 <cp16net> \o\ /o/ 18:01:38 <amrith> let's give folks a couple of minutes to come in, and I'll go get some coffee 18:01:49 <amrith> hi, this is the trove meeting 18:01:51 <amrith> that's dbaas 18:01:53 <amrith> not the video game 18:02:04 <amrith> maybe you are lost cp16net ... are you new here? 18:02:05 <vgnbkr> o/ 18:02:07 <trevormc> o/ 18:02:09 <schang> o/ 18:02:29 <cp16net> i have a bug where i cant get treasures in trove 18:02:35 <amrith> long time no see cp16net 18:02:38 <cp16net> i'm so poor i need more moneys 18:02:42 <cp16net> lol 18:03:01 <cp16net> howdy 18:03:18 <amrith> so cp16net I found some issues with this particular commit ... 10d738aad29777ebdb31b286ce5cd750e298e2ad 18:03:24 <cp16net> thought i would see how things are going 18:03:24 <amrith> could you please go fix it :) 18:03:42 <cp16net> not my fault! 18:03:46 <cp16net> :-P 18:03:47 <amrith> FYI, that's was your first commit to Trove in case people want to go and see how long ago that was 18:03:50 <amrith> everything is your fault 18:03:57 <amrith> let's get started 18:04:03 <cp16net> thats true... 18:04:08 <amrith> if someone in Canada would jog peterstac ... 18:04:16 <amrith> #agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TroveMeeting 18:04:24 <peterstac> o/ 18:04:30 <amrith> #topic Pulse Update 18:04:52 <amrith> and for those of you who don't know, cp16net, he used to do some trove stuff (not a lot) a while ago. 18:05:07 <amrith> so we had a bunch of activity over the past week 18:05:19 <amrith> and we're close to pushing an RC1 out of the door for Newton 18:05:25 <amrith> and we'll talk more about that in a bit 18:05:35 <amrith> but the review count this past week was high 18:05:41 <amrith> because of all the churn related to the release 18:05:46 <amrith> and thanks to all who did reviews this week 18:05:59 <amrith> I saw some new names, songjian spilla ... thank you 18:06:22 <amrith> the graphs and stuff are at 18:06:23 <amrith> #link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vJxNaoR3VVNS1Cpiz7U--1zyJRZ6ybMxzJoayrjdduo/edit?usp=sharing 18:06:50 <amrith> if anyone has anything they want to share on the subject ... 18:07:20 <peterstac> I think we hit an all-time high on total reviews 18:07:30 <peterstac> (since we started keeping the graph that is) 18:07:58 <amrith> yup 18:08:14 <amrith> sure was a record of sorts 18:09:03 <amrith> Also, I think I've messed up the formatting of the agenda and I'll fix that 18:09:07 <amrith> but the next topic is 18:09:09 <amrith> #topic Newton release schedule 18:09:25 <amrith> So, today is the deadline for Newton RC1 18:09:33 <amrith> and I think we're in a generally good place. 18:09:55 <amrith> We've release our client about 10 days ago 18:10:04 <amrith> and there are tags for both dashboard and trove at this point 18:10:23 <amrith> and these releases meet all of the FFE's that we set forth two weeks ago 18:10:46 <amrith> So, we now have the harder task of deciding whether we are good with RC1 18:10:54 <amrith> or whether we want to accept more changes in 18:11:06 <amrith> the majority of what I wanted to discuss is related to that 18:11:22 <amrith> peterstac, put together a list of changes for consideration in RC1 18:11:27 <amrith> so let me turn it over to peterstac 18:11:36 <amrith> and he can walk us through this ... 18:11:49 <amrith> peterstac, ... sorry I didn't tell you I would put you on the spot. no pressure 18:12:02 <peterstac> no problem 18:12:15 * amrith runs to look at peterstac's list 18:12:20 <peterstac> I went through the list of 'jenkins-ok' bugs and put together a list 18:12:34 <peterstac> that I thought could still make it into newton 18:12:48 <peterstac> most are fairly straight-forward 18:13:19 <peterstac> on the other hand, none are critical - but I thought we could still get them in unless someone objected 18:14:04 <peterstac> (but we'd have to decide quickly, since it'll take 1 1/2 hours to churn through the gate) 18:14:23 <peterstac> I don't believe any conflict with each other ... 18:14:51 <peterstac> amrith, did you want me to go through them one at a time? 18:15:02 <amrith> fine with me 18:15:13 <peterstac> ok - first: 18:15:17 <amrith> or if people have questions or objections about any one of them, we could talk abou tit 18:15:19 <amrith> about it 18:15:25 <amrith> your call 18:15:27 <amrith> floor is yours 18:15:45 <peterstac> it would probably only take 10 min or so 18:15:58 <peterstac> and then we'll have it over with :) 18:16:03 <peterstac> initial chkin of pylint 18:16:10 <peterstac> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/367640/ 18:16:26 <peterstac> This is a change that amrith put up to run pylint on the code 18:16:53 <peterstac> it would be the first step to having it run in the gate (first as a non-voting job of course) 18:16:59 <amrith> I think it is low risk 18:17:08 <peterstac> I think it would help keep our code clean 18:17:19 <peterstac> and yes, very low risk 18:17:36 <amrith> cp16net, johnma your thoughts? 18:17:40 <johnma> yes I think that would be good to get it in for RC1. 18:18:35 <amrith> johnma, I made your recommended correction 18:18:42 <amrith> I did find something in the process (the tool did) 18:18:47 <amrith> that I wanted to bring to your attention 18:19:05 <amrith> It flagged this as an error 18:19:06 <amrith> ERROR: trove/guestagent/datastore/experimental/db2/service.py 256: E1101 no-member, DB2App._update_dbm_config: Instance of 'str' has no 'is_warning' member 18:19:10 <johnma> yes I saw that amrith 18:19:18 <amrith> I'm not sure whether it is a real error 18:19:20 <amrith> or benigh 18:19:24 <amrith> benign 18:19:27 <johnma> I ran it on my local env and am fixing it 18:19:45 <amrith> but want to highlight it because it isn't one of the normal "only-known-at-runtime" kinds of issues that cause pylint to give false positives 18:19:49 <amrith> so, your call 18:20:07 <amrith> as peterstac said the tool has no associated tests (in the CI) though you can tox it. 18:20:14 <amrith> I didn't rebuild the errors file 18:20:36 * amrith shuts up and looks to peterstac (the MC) to continue 18:20:52 <peterstac> right, so it will probably output a couple of errors now, but I think we can fix them after we get a nv check job running 18:21:21 <amrith> +1 18:21:34 <peterstac> (in other words, I'm good with it :) ) 18:21:42 * amrith turns and looks to the rest of the attendees 18:22:23 <johnma> me too 18:22:33 <peterstac> ok, sold! 18:22:42 <peterstac> (anyone else??) 18:23:03 <peterstac> next: Deprecate 'guest_log_long_query_time' 18:23:13 <peterstac> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/311237/ 18:23:33 <amrith> my only question about this is whether we are really 'deprecating' the variable 18:23:50 <amrith> or are we just not going to honor a legacy setting and use the new one instead? 18:23:54 <peterstac> This basically allows the end user to specify the slow query time, instead of having it hard-coded by the operator 18:24:13 <amrith> if it is set by operator, with this change, what happens? 18:24:17 <amrith> is that value ignored? 18:25:05 * peterstac runs off to look at the code again 18:25:39 <amrith> my suspicion is that it is ignored 18:25:56 <amrith> see my comment from 18:25:56 <amrith> May 6 9:15 PM 18:25:58 <pmalik> Well. The way it is now: the value from the config group takes presedence over the value from Trove config. 18:26:26 <amrith> pmalik, if there is no value in the config group will the value in trove config be used? if yes, I have no objections 18:26:36 <amrith> if no, I have reservations but see the value of the change. 18:26:55 <amrith> and realize that there is no universally "right" way around this. 18:27:23 <pmalik> Yes. I made it this way as a reaction to your comment from May 6 18:27:46 <amrith> OK, I will re-review; I missed that part. 18:27:49 <amrith> thanks pmalik 18:27:51 <pmalik> So if there is not value in the config group the value from Trove config gets used. 18:28:03 <amrith> I have no objections (subject to that re-review). 18:28:06 <amrith> that's fine 18:28:09 <amrith> that is ideal 18:28:30 <amrith> well, ideal is a strong word. that is justifiable, rationalizable, ... 18:29:00 <amrith> peterstac, you already have a +2 on it, yes? I'll re-read it shortly 18:29:04 <johnma> I will review this as well 18:29:10 <peterstac> I kind of suspect as well that no operators have changed the default 18:29:59 <peterstac> yes, I put a +2 on it 18:30:01 <amrith> pmalik, the value is now in *all* datastore specific configs or only the ones where we use it now? 18:30:16 <peterstac> it would only be where there are user logs 18:30:25 <peterstac> so mysql variants and postgresql 18:31:09 <amrith> thx pmalik, +2 18:31:46 <peterstac> ok, next: Use common methods for cluster validation 18:31:57 <peterstac> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/320687/ 18:32:30 <peterstac> this consolidates the validation for cluster stuff (like flavors, etc.) into one spot 18:32:49 <peterstac> pmalik, any comments? 18:33:40 <mvandijk> i wouldn't say that is worth it for N 18:33:44 <mvandijk> vote punt to o 18:34:18 <pmalik> It has been there quite a long time. If the community feels like it is ok to go now... 18:34:21 <amrith> the large file seems to be an add 18:34:27 <amrith> the rest seem to be reasonable merges 18:34:45 <mvandijk> it is cleanup only 18:34:59 <mvandijk> not worth adding risk at this point 18:35:01 <amrith> i'm leaning towards mvandijk's view 18:35:49 <peterstac> I'm ok with that - we'll put it on the agenda for next week then 18:35:50 <amrith> unless there's a strong reason to get it into newton, or there is low risk, I'm inclined to say no 18:36:17 <amrith> to be clear, the deprecation thing we just talked about has a strong reason in my mind, it starts the deprecation clock 18:36:17 <peterstac> next: Stop adding ServiceAvailable group option 18:36:20 <amrith> of one cycle .. 18:36:22 <amrith> sorry peterstac 18:36:25 <amrith> go ahead 18:36:35 <peterstac> np, I agree with that 18:36:48 <peterstac> if we deprecate something, we should put out the warning asap 18:37:09 <amrith> this is test only, yes? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/366963/ 18:37:09 <peterstac> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/366963/ 18:37:31 <peterstac> This tweaks the tempest stuff and is test only 18:37:34 <amrith> and makes the tempest people happy 18:37:37 <peterstac> so low risk 18:37:39 <amrith> I'm for it 18:37:57 <johnma> me too. 18:38:07 <amrith> ok, in that case I'll approve it 18:38:08 <amrith> thx 18:38:30 <amrith> johnma, you ok with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/311237/? 18:39:02 <amrith> oh, way ahead of me 18:39:03 <johnma> yes amrith. I approved it 18:39:07 <amrith> you already +1'ed it:) 18:39:53 <peterstac> next: Call GuestError with proper options 18:40:04 <peterstac> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/363796/ 18:40:13 <peterstac> This is just cleanup code as well 18:40:27 <peterstac> I'm ok with punting it to Ocata 18:41:01 <peterstac> (it's been there a long time, and just fixes the omission of part of the message) 18:41:53 <peterstac> next: last: Use http_proxy_to_wsgi middleware 18:42:02 <peterstac> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/337063/ 18:42:39 <mvandijk> i dont know what that does tbh 18:42:54 <peterstac> here's the bug describing it 18:42:57 <peterstac> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1590608 18:42:58 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1590608 in OpenStack DBaaS (Trove) "Services should use http_proxy_to_wsgi middleware" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Masaki Matsushita (mmasaki) 18:43:20 <amrith> before you move on 18:43:25 <amrith> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/363796/ 18:43:46 <peterstac> yes? 18:44:12 <amrith> how risky is this? 18:44:16 <amrith> I don't see much 18:44:28 <peterstac> not much 18:45:19 <peterstac> we could still put it in if there are no objections ... 18:45:40 <amrith> i don't see a good reason not to ... 18:45:49 <amrith> anyone? 18:46:05 <johnma> how do we currently handle HTTP_X_FORWARDED_PROTO 18:46:43 <peterstac> sorry johnma, we switched back to ' 18:46:43 <peterstac> Call GuestError with proper options' :) 18:46:44 <johnma> I dont see any problem adding this in 18:46:50 <amrith> peterstac, I've +2'ed it. 18:47:11 <peterstac> put mine back too 18:47:22 <amrith> as for the wsgi thing, I've tried to understand it, like when the other guy mkrotschek (name?) did some of that 18:47:27 <amrith> and I didn't quite grok it 18:47:46 <peterstac> yeah, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details too, but Trove still seems to work after :) 18:48:14 <amrith> well, I think we've got to set the bar a bit higher now ... 18:48:34 <peterstac> johnma, cp16net, how does it look to you? 18:49:02 <johnma> I am lost. which one are we talking about now peterstac 18:49:42 <amrith> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/337063/ 18:49:47 <amrith> i think 18:49:51 <peterstac> sorry, we're back to HTTP_X_FORWARDED_PROTO 18:50:27 <peterstac> The change looks the same as was done in keystone 18:50:45 <amrith> I'm not in favor of doing this one now; I don't know what it'll break that we haven't thought of 18:50:59 <amrith> but others who understand this better than me ...you should decide 18:51:48 <peterstac> since this is just configuration, operators could always set this up themselves 18:52:03 <peterstac> so I'm ok to push this to Ocata 18:52:38 <peterstac> any other opinions? 18:52:54 <johnma> +1 for ocata 18:53:03 <amrith> mine is a non-opnion in favor of ocata 18:53:10 <amrith> does that count? 18:53:31 <peterstac> counts for me :) 18:54:21 <amrith> ok, so that's the list, yes? 18:54:51 <peterstac> just one clarification on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/363796/ 18:54:56 <amrith> my reckoning is that we said yes to 1, 2, 4, and 5 but not 3 and 6 18:55:04 <peterstac> should we push that over? 18:55:25 <amrith> that was my question 18:55:35 <amrith> #5 18:55:36 <peterstac> that's #5, so ok 18:55:42 <amrith> well, is it 18:55:47 <amrith> is that what we agreed to? 18:55:54 <amrith> 1, 2, 4 and 5? 18:55:54 <peterstac> I'll push it over the line, so we're done 18:56:00 <peterstac> yes 18:56:07 <amrith> johnma, is that OK? 18:56:15 <amrith> cp16net, if you are still here ... 18:56:27 <johnma> yes amrith. that sounds good to me 18:56:48 <amrith> ok, peterstac ... 1, 2, 4 and 5 18:56:51 <amrith> and we're at RC1 18:57:07 <amrith> wait, johnma is working on one fix 18:57:16 <amrith> for the err.is_warning() 18:57:20 <amrith> yes? 18:57:20 <peterstac> amrith, all done 18:57:31 <amrith> ... not so fast ... 18:57:34 <johnma> yes I will push that out 18:57:45 <amrith> ok, so 1, 2, 4, 5 + is_warning() 18:57:53 <peterstac> (all done wrt the six in the agenda) 18:58:01 <amrith> ok 18:58:17 <amrith> anyone here for Open Discussion? 18:58:18 <peterstac> I'll look out for the is_warning fix too and test asap 18:58:20 <amrith> #topic open discussion 18:58:36 <johnma> sounds good, thanks peterstac, amrith 18:59:01 <peterstac> np johnma 18:59:11 <peterstac> I don't have anything else amrith 18:59:16 <mvandijk> so for ocata 18:59:29 <mvandijk> can we get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/236082/ in ? 18:59:51 <peterstac> mvandijk, yep, that's on my list of things to push next 18:59:51 <amrith> have to wait for the split 18:59:58 <mvandijk> ok good thanks 19:00:50 <amrith> thx all 19:00:51 <amrith> #endmeeting