08:00:21 <ifat_afek> #startmeeting vitrage
08:00:22 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Apr 17 08:00:21 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ifat_afek. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:00:23 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
08:00:25 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'vitrage'
08:00:25 <ifat_afek> Hi :-)
08:01:27 <idan_hefetz> Hi!
08:01:49 <e0ne> hi
08:02:15 <ifat_afek> #topic Status and updates
08:02:42 <ifat_afek> I’m working on preparing for Denver sessions. I’m preparing a demo for the Heat&Vitrage session, and helping with the Monasca&Vitrage lab.
08:02:55 <ifat_afek> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/denver-2019/summit-schedule/global-search?t=vitrage
08:03:00 <ifat_afek> A link to the PTG etherpad:
08:03:07 <ifat_afek> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/vitrage-train-ptg
08:03:16 <ifat_afek> That’s it for me
08:03:26 <ifat_afek> Any other updates or issues?
08:04:31 <e0ne> ifat_afek: are we OK with my hotfix for vitrage+monasca UI?
08:05:39 <ifat_afek> e0ne: it seems to work fine, thanks! I did not test it thoroughly, but the problems that I noticed in the lab env are all fixed
08:05:54 <ifat_afek> and thanks a lot for your help
08:05:56 <e0ne> soungd good
08:06:00 <e0ne> *sounds
08:06:28 <ifat_afek> do you think it will also fix the Vitrage+Heat problems? I can test it next week when I have some more free time
08:06:42 <e0ne> ifat_afek: I'll test it later today
08:06:52 <ifat_afek> today is better than next week :-)
08:07:16 <e0ne> so what is the future of vitrage-dashboard: I can go forward to move everything into the xstatic-* or should we wait until react-based implementation?
08:07:20 <ifat_afek> I just want to make progress with the lab and the Vitrage+Heat demo, before I move on to other things
08:07:53 <e0ne> sure
08:08:22 <ifat_afek> good question. I see that Alon and Noor are not here. the react-based implementation will probably take time, so I guess it depends on how much effort it is for you
08:08:24 <e0ne> but I want to confirm that we still need to use xstatic for the current implementation
08:08:46 <e0ne> ifat_afek: I can do most of the things before the summit
08:08:47 <ifat_afek> I’m not sure what to say about it, will have to ask Alon
08:09:57 <e0ne> ok, let's wait for Alon's response
08:10:33 <ifat_afek> Anything else we should discuss today?
08:10:45 <ifat_afek> Next week is a holiday in Israel, and the week after is the summit. I suggest we cancel the next two meetings, and meet again on May 8th.
08:11:07 <e0ne> +1
08:11:08 <ifat_afek> I will be working next week, but most people won’t
08:11:19 <e0ne> but I'll skip the meeting on May, 8th
08:11:29 <ifat_afek> ok
08:11:42 <e0ne> I've got a question about templates add API
08:11:47 <ifat_afek> sure
08:12:12 <e0ne> actually, there are two questions:)
08:12:41 <e0ne> it returns 200 OK even if there are some errors
08:13:18 <e0ne> e.g. http://paste.openstack.org/show/749412/
08:13:21 <ifat_afek> I think this was done on purpose. so you can add the template, ask to show it (vitrage template show) and then fix the problems
08:13:30 <ifat_afek> but I’m not sure this is really the wanted behavior
08:14:03 <e0ne> ifat_afek: you're pushing me to the next question
08:14:08 <ifat_afek> actually, in your example I would expect it to fail
08:14:15 <e0ne> +1
08:14:36 <e0ne> If I add incorrect template, it won't be added to the database
08:14:41 <ifat_afek> and I think we need to have tempest test that verfies it. but maybe the tempest verfies the wrong behavior…
08:14:47 <e0ne> I was expecting to see it in the 'error' state
08:15:24 <ifat_afek> an incorrect template *is* added to the database, I’m almost sure about it. maybe it depends on the kind of error
08:15:41 <ifat_afek> in your example, the template type was missing. but if you create an invalid syntax, it should be added anyway
08:15:51 <e0ne> it's pretty strange to see 200 OK and the error in the response body
08:16:09 <e0ne> ifat_afek: yes, but it's inconsystent
08:16:14 <ifat_afek> the template type did not exist in version 1, so you should add a --type standard to the cli call
08:16:25 <ifat_afek> you are right, it is inconsistent
08:17:09 <ifat_afek> the type is a special case, because it controls the validation that takes place (e.g. for equivalence templates we don’t have any validation at this point)
08:17:21 <ifat_afek> but you are right that we should make it more clear and consistent
08:17:26 <e0ne> ifat_afek: I do understand why it fails. I did the mistake to show the current behaviour
08:17:47 <ifat_afek> yes, I understand that
08:18:35 <e0ne> I expect to have 400 bad request if template syntax is wrong or some parameter is missed
08:20:16 <ifat_afek> makes sense
08:22:19 <e0ne> if we've got agreement on it, I'll propose a patch once will finish with dashboard things
08:22:47 <ifat_afek> ok. of course, we should discuss it with the rest of the team. but personally I agree
08:22:58 <e0ne> great
08:24:40 <ifat_afek> anything else?
08:25:04 <e0ne> nothing from my side
08:25:20 <ifat_afek> ok, have a great day :-)
08:25:43 <ifat_afek> #endmeeting