09:00:35 #startmeeting watcher 09:00:35 Meeting started Wed Nov 9 09:00:35 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is acabot. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 09:00:36 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 09:00:38 The meeting name has been set to 'watcher' 09:00:39 o/ 09:00:58 o/ 09:01:34 agenda for today #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Watcher_Meeting_Agenda#11.2F09.2F2016 09:01:37 o/ 09:01:50 brunograz alexchadin : how was the summit ? 09:02:11 acabot: it was beautiful! 09:02:13 acabot: v interesting - first time attending it 09:02:41 I know this place in Barcelona from previous events and its very nice 09:02:51 jed56 told me that weather was great too 09:02:56 hi 09:02:58 hello! I want to contribute to watcher, currently trying to understand watcher current codebase! so I am here :) 09:03:15 exploreshaifali : welcome ! 09:03:23 Thanks! acabot 09:03:26 exploreshaifali: you're welcome! 09:03:35 welcome :) 09:03:37 exploreshaifali : for which company are you working ? 09:03:48 Thanks all! 09:04:06 acabot, I am an individual contributor.... I started with openstack as Outreachy intern 09:04:18 now I want to continue contributing to OpenStack more 09:04:29 exploreshaifali : ok looks great 09:04:58 hello. 09:05:02 waiting 2 min for others to join 09:05:16 so I will keep pinging you guys for further help to understand watcher codebase 09:05:30 hidekazu : hi, how was your summit ? 09:05:44 acabot: good. 09:05:55 Hello 09:06:06 hi atuly 09:06:13 acabot: i am sure watcher is good community. 09:06:33 hidekazu : thx and sorry for not being at the summit personnaly 09:06:33 hi atuly. 09:06:44 #topic Announcements 09:06:53 #info The OpenStack Summit in Barcelona is over, minutes are available on etherpad 09:07:00 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/watcher-ocata-design-session 09:07:44 We should send a recap of all discussions on the ML, as I was not there, I would suggest that someone else does it 09:08:06 does anyone wants to do it ? 09:08:55 #action acabot ask sballe to send a recap of the summit on the ML 09:09:02 acabot: how do i get included in ML? 09:09:18 atuly : you should register to openstack-dev 09:09:26 and filter with [watcher] tag 09:09:31 ok 09:09:37 #info Team priorities for Ocata have to be merged 09:09:44 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/372528/ 09:10:09 I would like to have a maximum of +1 on this review before merging it 09:10:31 so please go through it (its very small) and +1 09:10:51 #info Feedback for the mascot is requested by Friday 11th 09:10:58 #link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_h5gjY7WQPMX2FYSVBOWk8zYWs/view?usp=sharing 09:11:10 does anyone has feedback to share ? 09:11:32 personnaly I'm fine with the design 09:11:53 looks good, material design? 09:11:55 acabot: looks nice and neat 09:12:33 yeah, It looks good 09:12:38 ok so lets keep this design 09:12:50 #topic Review Action Items 09:12:59 we have a lot of reviews open 09:13:05 Watcher specs 09:13:12 automatic triggering of action plans for AUDIT needs a new PS and final reviews from core 09:13:18 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/342473/ 09:13:22 is diga here ? 09:13:36 alexchadin : did you ping diga to help him , 09:13:37 ? 09:13:45 acabot: not yet 09:13:56 acabot: I haven't seen him online 09:14:21 alexchadin : would you mind to reassign the BP to yourself ? 09:14:41 alexchadin : diga is not able to give us feedback 09:14:55 alexchadin : and its an essential BP for Ocata 09:15:03 acabot: If he wouldn't mind, I will take care of it 09:15:24 #action acabot ask diga for a reassignment of his bp 09:15:34 scale out or delete instance based on workload needs a new PS 09:15:41 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/359690/ 09:15:57 yumeng : any update ? 09:16:04 acabot:hi 09:16:16 since there is an existed strategy handling the same problem using Heat auto-sacling, we are considering abandon and not to duplicate that work. 09:16:45 Yumeng : ok, sorry for that 09:17:06 we definitely need to document existing strategies to avoid this case 09:17:31 Specs for watcher-versioned-objects needs a new PS and final reviews from core 09:17:38 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/383718/ 09:17:55 vincentfrancoise : any update ? 09:18:26 vincentfrancoise : I think you have all comments from core reviewers 09:19:34 sorry he wasn't there 09:19:38 hi all 09:19:43 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/383718/ 09:19:52 vincentfrancoise : any update ? 09:20:28 acabot: well, I still have some work to do to remove the previous notification code that is still there 09:20:39 but the spec ? 09:20:44 ok 09:20:48 code in the spec 09:21:13 Specs for audit-versioned-notifications-api needs a new PS 09:21:20 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/385077/ 09:21:27 acabot: spec wise, I need to add some extra precisions regarding things I didn't mention 09:21:41 ok and for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/385077/ ? 09:21:42 acabot: but also take into account the comments that were made 09:22:06 ok 09:22:11 acabot: I need to add 2 more payloads for audit.strategy.error and ausit.planner.error 09:22:32 #action vincentfrancoise add new PS for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/383718/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/385077/ 09:22:33 acabot: these will be sent over when things go wrong 09:23:04 Define grammar for workload characterization needs a new PS 09:23:10 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/377100/ 09:23:24 #action hvprash add a new PS for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/377100/ 09:23:37 Define when an action plan is stale/invalid is in merge conflict and needs final reviews from core 09:23:44 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/386293/ 09:23:57 is licanwei here ? 09:24:03 yes 09:24:22 could you rebase this patch ? 09:24:30 ok 09:24:52 acabot: licanwei: I've just reviewed this spec this morning. Please take into account my comments 09:24:59 #action licanwei add a new PS for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/386293/ answering comments 09:25:16 Audit tag in VM Metadata needs a new PS 09:25:20 dtardivel: Thanks 09:25:22 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391374/ 09:25:44 #action hvprash add a new PS for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391374/ answering comments 09:25:52 Add improvements to the planner and workflow mechanisms needs reviews 09:25:58 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/385871/ 09:26:22 alexchadin : can we start reviewing your spec ? 09:26:41 acabot: yes, David already started 09:26:47 I see that 09:26:58 so I suppose its fine to start reviewing 09:27:13 who wants to review ? 09:27:14 +1 09:27:24 acabot: me 09:27:39 +1 09:27:40 #action vincentfrancoise acabot review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/385871/ 09:27:45 acabot: although I'll probably do it next week 09:27:48 #action licanwei review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/385871/ 09:28:13 exploreshaifali : reviewing spec could be a good way to start contributing 09:28:21 exploreshaifali : we need more +1 to improve specs 09:28:33 moving to Watcher 09:28:36 acabot, sure! I will follow them 09:29:09 #action exploreshaifali review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/385871/ 09:29:15 watcher versionned objects needs reviews 09:29:23 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/watcher+branch:master+topic:bp/watcher-versioned-objects 09:29:46 we just need W+1 on those patches 09:29:58 vincentfrancoise : can we merge them by EOW ? 09:30:25 acabot: I'm ready to set W+1 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/359065/ 09:30:40 alexchadin: I'll add a trust-me-it-works tag on them if you want :D 09:30:56 vincentfrancoise: :D 09:31:01 haha 09:31:04 alexchadin: I think the best would be to have you #W+1 all of them 09:31:55 alexchadin : as it has been reviewed by dtardivel and we don't have an Intel core anymore 09:33:07 vincentfrancoise : do we need to have all patches merged at the same time for consistency ? 09:33:15 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/watcher+branch:master+topic:bp/watcher-versioned-objects 09:33:45 audit versioned notifications api needs reviews 09:33:52 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/watcher+branch:master+topic:bp/audit-versioned-notifications-api 09:34:09 vincentfrancoise : I suppose this is still in WIP ? 09:35:10 acabot: yes 09:35:17 ok 09:35:19 check the state of action plan needs reviews 09:35:26 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391383/ 09:35:59 licanwei : I suppose you need review on this ? who wants to review it ? 09:36:23 acabot: yes 09:36:44 +1 09:36:46 +1 09:37:01 #action brunograz yumeng dtardivel review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391383/ 09:37:36 Add doc for workload-stabilization spec needs discussion ? 09:37:43 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/389101/ 09:37:46 brunograz, Ymeng: Thanks 09:38:13 acabot: i am reviewing. 09:38:31 licanwei: :) 09:38:33 hidekazu : did you try again this strategy ? 09:38:54 acabot: yes. 09:39:01 #action acabot review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/389101/ 09:39:37 Added Tempest API tests for /scoring_engines needs reviews 09:39:48 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/371558/ 09:40:07 it needs a new PS after hidekazu comments 09:40:19 alexchadin : can you submit a new patch ? 09:40:39 sorry this patch is from vincentfrancoise 09:40:52 vincentfrancoise : can you resubmit a patch ? 09:41:15 vincentfrancoise : at least answer hidekazu comments 09:41:21 acabot: will do but it will be come after my work on OVO/notification blueprints 09:41:28 ok 09:41:43 #action vincentfrancoise add a new PS for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/371558/ 09:41:56 Watcher CLI 09:42:06 acabot: if someone wants to finish it, I'll be more than happy to leave it to someone else ;) 09:42:30 #undo 09:42:31 i can pick it up. 09:42:32 Removing item from minutes: 09:42:48 #action atuly add a new PS for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/371558/ 09:42:52 thx atuly 09:43:02 Add functional tests to watcherclient is still WIP ? needs reviews ? 09:43:04 atuly: cool! 09:43:08 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/389181/ 09:43:24 alexchadin : is this still WIP ? 09:43:25 You can start to review it, I will just add new objects 09:43:47 ok so should we wait for a new PS before reviewing ? 09:44:19 It would be great to get review on already implemented things:) 09:44:42 acabot: I will recview it 09:44:55 I need to add test_audit and test_scoring_engine files 09:45:07 exploreshaifali : do you want to review functional tests as well ? 09:45:16 acabot, yes :) 09:45:33 #action dtardivel exploreshaifali review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/389181/ 09:45:43 vincentfrancoise: can you remind me how to add gate test for functional module? 09:45:59 exploreshaifali : whats your gerrit nick ? 09:45:59 in our primary channel, of course 09:46:41 #info I forgot to mention that Watcher CLI v0.25.1 has been released after Summit freeze 09:46:42 alexchadin: it's within the openstack/project-config project 09:47:07 alexchadin: we can discuss this after the meeting if you want 09:47:14 +1 09:47:19 #topic Blueprint/Bug Review and Discussion 09:47:30 #info Our current milestone target is Ocata-1 due November 14th 09:47:38 #link https://launchpad.net/watcher/+milestone/ocata-1 09:48:01 we still have 10 BPs targeted for next week :-) 09:48:24 oh 09:49:08 I will move "not started" BP to Ocata-2 09:49:47 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/watcher/+spec/automatic-triggering-audit is marked as essential 09:49:56 and we dont have a spec ready 09:50:43 #action refresh BPs list to reflect ocata-1 achievements 09:50:50 #action acabot refresh BPs list to reflect ocata-1 achievements 09:50:57 acabot, my gerrit nick - shaifali 09:51:21 thx 09:51:28 #topic Open discussions 09:51:35 Shouldn't all strategies have an associated tempest test to make sure they work? 09:51:57 IMHO, they should 09:52:07 it would be nice but can we always do it ? 09:52:21 vincentfrancoise: how to handle metrics ? 09:52:22 I mean if the strategy rely on non available metrics on the gate ? 09:52:37 one problem I had when trying to help hidekazu out was that the strategy wasn't working straight away 09:53:04 They should. How will tempest create loads on some compute nodes? For example, in case of workload stabilization strategy we need at least two compute nodes with different loads inside. 09:53:42 this is something that can discourage some people from using Watcher 09:54:05 as for the handling of metrics 09:54:38 IMHO, all strategies should work even if the no metrics are available 09:54:52 but in such a case the resulting action plan should be empty 09:54:58 and warnings should be raised 09:55:20 the problem I see is that strategy developer should be aware of tempest behavior 09:55:30 vincentfrancoise: What do we need to test then?:) 09:55:44 brunograz : what do you think ? could you provide tempest tests to test your strategy ? 09:55:44 If we do not provide any metrics 09:56:23 acabot: we could have a look on this - I'm not familiar with tempest tests 09:56:28 acabot: what do you mean by tempest behaviour? 09:56:46 I mean understanding how tempest tests should be written 09:56:56 I don't think that ALL strategies should be checked in tempest test ? What do we want to check with tempest tests ? the framework, the strategies ? 09:57:03 acabot: ah yes 09:57:56 acabot: the thing is that we can also ask the question the other way around: how can a reviewer make sure it really works if he cannot run it on his environment? 09:58:40 acabot: regarding existing strategies, it's another problem although we should eventually have them covered 09:58:41 ok so it will be a kind of "dummy test" 09:59:14 just to check that the strategy run without any metric 09:59:29 acabot: yes 09:59:43 I will move this discussion to next week agenda 09:59:44 acabot: but if someone has these metrics setup on their own infrastructure 09:59:48 that sounds reasonable 09:59:54 yes it is 09:59:56 acabot: that dummy test on the gate becomes a real test 10:00:15 we have to leave 10:00:16 thx 10:00:19 bye 10:00:20 thx 10:00:22 thank you all 10:00:22 bye all 10:00:24 #endmeeting