| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Remove legacy integration test framework https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/964775 | 05:15 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add option to SKIP Actions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/958209 | 05:15 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add option to SKIP Actions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/958209 | 05:16 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Fixed incorrect use of status_choices in statetable https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/959189 | 05:16 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add option to SKIP Actions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/958209 | 05:30 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Added tempest API tests for continous audit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/956004 | 06:15 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Added tempest API tests for continous audit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/956004 | 07:27 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Added tempest API tests for continous audit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/956004 | 07:34 |
| amoralej | hi, as discussed, i'm sending a patch to replace the usage of override-defaults https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/master/devstack/override-defaults#L9 by a more explicit setting in .zuul.yaml in jobs definitions. Should I remove that overrides file or i can leave it for the case of manual devstack deployments? | 09:52 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher master: Set notification_format explicitely in jobs config https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/966252 | 10:06 |
| jgilaber | amoralej, I would eitherkepp the overrides or add the configuration | 10:18 |
| jgilaber | in the example local.conf files | 10:19 |
| amoralej | i decided to keep it in the overrides to avoid adding it to local.conf and keep backwards compatibility in case anyone is deploying it with their own local.conf files | 10:19 |
| amoralej | but can modified if needed | 10:19 |
| jgilaber | that makes sense to me | 10:20 |
| jgilaber | sean-k-mooney, I've been digging some more on the functional tempest failures on some stable branches | 10:21 |
| jgilaber | I think the problems comes from https://github.com/openstack/tempest/commit/f7470781222524a6a65848721e7f64c6dd5cb8aa | 10:21 |
| jgilaber | I suspect that setting the upper constraints file is forcing the tempest tox env to be recreated and then it's missing the watcher tempest plugin | 10:22 |
| jgilaber | the 2025.1 job is recreating the env https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/1043240c04a6440d9519719c5e01f6a2/log/job-output.txt#28271 | 10:22 |
| jgilaber | while the 2025.2 does not https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/6424ad8fe237481981686f89402470f2/log/job-output.txt#27964 | 10:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber ah ok | 11:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: we shoudl fix this gmaan ^ can you comment on that when your around | 11:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | what is the correc tway to ensure the tempest plugin is preserved | 11:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: we ar eproably missign a step | 11:22 |
| jgilaber | maybe we should configure TEMPEST_VENV_UPPER_CONSTRAINTS in those jobs to point to stable/202*? | 11:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes but i think tha tis ment to be done in devstack for use on the stable branch of devstack | 11:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | but also that is only needed when we are pinning tempest | 11:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | we use master tempest for all stable branches | 11:40 |
| sean-k-mooney | so its really only needed on unmaintaied jobs | 11:40 |
| sean-k-mooney | at least that is my understanding | 11:40 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/roles/run-tempest/tasks/main.yaml#L34 | 11:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | also seams to configure it for us | 11:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: how are we installing the plugin? | 11:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | ah good we are doing it via devstack usint the tempst_plugin mechanisum https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/master/.zuul.yaml#L117-L118 | 11:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: let make the failing jobs non voting for now so we can merge the patch to drop 2024.1 | 11:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: then we cand fix the failing branches seperately | 11:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | well failing brnach jobs since it not a branched repo | 11:47 |
| jgilaber | sounds good, let me send a patch | 11:48 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Make functional jobs older than 2025.2 non voting https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966256 | 11:52 |
| dviroel | hi all o/, watcher team meeting will start in 5 min | 11:55 |
| dviroel | #startmeeting watcher | 12:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu Nov 6 12:01:50 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dviroel. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 12:01 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 12:01 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'watcher' | 12:01 |
| dviroel | hi all o/ | 12:02 |
| jgilaber | o/ | 12:02 |
| morenod | o/ | 12:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | o/ | 12:02 |
| dviroel | courtesy ping: amoralej chandankumar rlandy | 12:03 |
| rlandy | o/ | 12:03 |
| chandankumar | o/ | 12:03 |
| amoralej | o/ | 12:03 |
| dviroel | oh, the ping works :) | 12:03 |
| dviroel | thank you all for joining :) | 12:03 |
| dviroel | let's start with today's meeting agenda | 12:03 |
| dviroel | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L27 (Meeting agenda) | 12:04 |
| dviroel | we have a couple of topics to cover today | 12:04 |
| dviroel | feel free to add your own topics to the agenda | 12:04 |
| dviroel | lets start | 12:04 |
| dviroel | #topic Announcements | 12:05 |
| dviroel | first one is about last week PTG | 12:05 |
| dviroel | we had a full week of discussion around different topics and across multiple projects | 12:05 |
| dviroel | in watcher sessions we covered: | 12:06 |
| dviroel | tech depts, future of integrations, known bugs/issues, improvements to the project, improvements to our testing and new features proposals, among others | 12:06 |
| dviroel | the link to the etherpad is | 12:07 |
| dviroel | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/watcher-2026.1-ptg | 12:07 |
| dviroel | you can also take a look on the summary instead, that I recently sent to the ML | 12:07 |
| dviroel | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/CQDEIZKBW6JF4WTE4U5JCIVDNA7FKD7B/ | 12:08 |
| dviroel | if you look at the ptg etherpad, on line ~#57 | 12:08 |
| dviroel | you will find a compilation of action items that was built based on all topics discussed during the week | 12:08 |
| dviroel | if you want to help us on any of these topics, please add your name on it | 12:09 |
| dviroel | if the item has already a person assigned, you may want to reach that person and see how you can help with that effort | 12:09 |
| dviroel | it is very likely that we will bring new discussions to this weekly meeting, as a follow up from our PTG sessions | 12:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | i have a second summary here https://gist.github.com/SeanMooney/8a5e8bfc3538917804dfff819c69de10 as well | 12:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | i proably wont do a block on the ptg sessions this release like i did last year | 12:11 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: thanks for sharing :) | 12:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | it takes quite a lot of enery to do that well, dviroel thanks for posting the summery ot the list | 12:11 |
| dviroel | ++ | 12:12 |
| dviroel | anyone wants to highlight something about the PTG? | 12:12 |
| amoralej | thanks for working on the summary dviroel | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | i had one tought on reflection after the event | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | we choose 3 hrous over 3 days, that left things quite compressed | 12:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | teh overlap with nova was also not ideal | 12:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | i wonder if we should cosnier withe more shorter sesssions or starting earlier (on the monday) next time | 12:14 |
| dviroel | right, most of the team were kinf of using the same timeslots | 12:14 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: yes we can | 12:14 |
| dviroel | ptg on monday was quiet in the end | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | it was a public holiday in ireland so whiel i coudl have attennded i chose not too | 12:15 |
| sean-k-mooney | if there were wathcer session i would have obvioulsy | 12:15 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i dont know how many other contries had a simialr holiday and if team avoided it as a result | 12:15 |
| dviroel | so yeah, next ptg we can try that | 12:15 |
| amoralej | i'd vote for doing more sessions, not shorter sessions, i think the conversations were good and i think it's good to give time | 12:15 |
| dviroel | we may include one more day in the end | 12:17 |
| dviroel | we may avoid conflicts starting earlier and reserving less time on each day | 12:18 |
| dviroel | ok | 12:18 |
| dviroel | we will have that discussion again next time, when we start booking them? | 12:18 |
| dviroel | but that s an important feedback | 12:19 |
| dviroel | anything else folks? | 12:19 |
| dviroel | we may want to move forward, we have more topics | 12:19 |
| dviroel | next on the announcement, a small one | 12:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep we can move on | 12:19 |
| dviroel | a just created a new status etherpad | 12:19 |
| dviroel | still working on adding links on it | 12:20 |
| dviroel | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/watcher-gazpacho-status | 12:20 |
| * dviroel created this 5 min before the meeting starts | 12:20 | |
| dviroel | so we can track our reviews there | 12:20 |
| dviroel | any improvement to that etherpad is welcome too | 12:20 |
| dviroel | we may want to track backports there too | 12:21 |
| dviroel | lets see | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | am can i make a request | 12:21 |
| dviroel | sure | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | can we sue 2026.1 instead | 12:21 |
| dviroel | in the etherpad name? | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | that technically the offal release name and gazpacho is just the code name | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes | 12:21 |
| dviroel | ack | 12:22 |
| dviroel | correct | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | ite much eaiser to fined the related ones if we just use the number | 12:22 |
| dviroel | since Antelope, the numbering are the official name | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | its why i use them for the ptg ethere pads as i often go back years later and refence them | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | im not sure we will do that of the status ones but finablity is high on my list | 12:22 |
| dviroel | i did had to search how to properly write gazpacho for instance | 12:22 |
| dviroel | ack, agree | 12:23 |
| dviroel | I can fix that after the meeting | 12:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes also that i cant spel gazpacho consitently | 12:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | +1 | 12:23 |
| dviroel | thanks for the feedback | 12:23 |
| dviroel | ok | 12:23 |
| dviroel | moving to the next | 12:23 |
| dviroel | #topic Unmaintained branch cleanup | 12:23 |
| dviroel | hey jgilaber o/ | 12:23 |
| dviroel | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/YK4FRR6LBKZNS3PXFSYH3P3P6HQL4HCS/ | 12:24 |
| dviroel | jgilaber recently sent this mail to openstack-discuss ml | 12:24 |
| jgilaber | we were talking about umnaintained branches last week with chandankumar and sean-k-mooney and realized we still have the old 2024.1 branch | 12:24 |
| jgilaber | so I sent the email to see if anyone was using that branch or had any need of it | 12:25 |
| jgilaber | otherwise we can remove it since it's been 2 years since the last patch | 12:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep | 12:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | the default is to remove unless a unmtained branch liason request it | 12:25 |
| jgilaber | I wanted to bring it here in case anyone had any objection, if not I'll propose a patch to remove it | 12:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | in this case no one has being doing maintainces (it does not have the security bug fix for example) | 12:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i think we shoudl proceed | 12:26 |
| amoralej | +1 | 12:26 |
| dviroel | +1 on proceed with the proposal | 12:26 |
| jgilaber | ack, I'll propose the patch after the meeting | 12:27 |
| dviroel | ack, thanks jgilaber | 12:27 |
| dviroel | since there is no objections or concerns, lets move to the next topic | 12:27 |
| dviroel | #topic Functional tempest jobs for 2025.1 and 2024.2 broken | 12:28 |
| dviroel | which is also from jgilaber | 12:28 |
| jgilaber | yep, yesterday I submitted a patch to drop the tempest functional job for 2024.1 | 12:28 |
| jgilaber | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966146 | 12:28 |
| jgilaber | and noticed that some functional jobs were consistently failing | 12:28 |
| jgilaber | I've created a bug for it https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher-tempest-plugin/+bug/2130783 | 12:29 |
| jgilaber | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher-tempest-plugin/+bug/2130783 | 12:29 |
| jgilaber | and submitted a patch to make them non-voting while I work on a fix to unblock other patches | 12:29 |
| jgilaber | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966256 | 12:29 |
| jgilaber | the tldr is that it seems that this commit https://github.com/openstack/tempest/commit/f7470781222524a6a65848721e7f64c6dd5cb8aa is making tox recreate the tempest venv | 12:30 |
| jgilaber | and that does not install the watcher-tempest-plugin so it does not find the tests | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | so thise feels like a cobination of things | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | newere version fo tox effectivly hash the venenv | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | so if it sees that we installed a package into it it will recreat it when we execute a command | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | there may be an interactoin with settup toosl as well but this feels like a tempest/devstack bug that we should report to the qa team | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | and then fix it ether in our plugin or tempest or devstack so that we do this porperly | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | i know there was dicsssion in devstack about how we are currently creating the venv | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | lets pick this up with gmaan whne they are online later | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | and bring it to the #openstack-qa channel | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | we are likely not the only team impacted | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | i need to step away for a few minutes so conitnue without me | 12:35 |
| dviroel | ack, do we agree on making 2025.1 and 2024.2 non-voting for now? or wait for a fix? | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | maybe also 2025.2 i saw that fail on one patch | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | but that is my propsoal yes | 12:35 |
| chandankumar | +1 for non-voting | 12:35 |
| dviroel | i think that it will depend on how quickly this fix will land? | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | we just need to be carful with what we merge | 12:36 |
| dviroel | yep | 12:36 |
| chandankumar | it is failing on my watcher tempest plugin patches also | 12:36 |
| dviroel | asking based on how urgent these patches are to land today on in 1 or 2 days | 12:36 |
| amoralej | is it affecting jobs only the stable tests in watcher-tempest-plugin or also in the stable branches of watcher ? | 12:37 |
| jgilaber | dviroel, maybe it's something simple, but I don't know enough about devstack to guess | 12:37 |
| dviroel | ack | 12:37 |
| dviroel | lets continue this conversation in the #openstack-qa channel | 12:37 |
| dviroel | and we can defer here in the channel later today | 12:37 |
| dviroel | thanks for working on this issue jgilaber | 12:38 |
| dviroel | and reporting it | 12:38 |
| jgilaber | amoralej, I would expect to also affect the watcher stables branches, but I don't think we've had anything recent running there | 12:38 |
| amoralej | ack | 12:38 |
| dviroel | yeah, ack | 12:39 |
| dviroel | ok, so lets move on and continue to track this after the meeting, ok? | 12:39 |
| jgilaber | +1 | 12:39 |
| dviroel | #topic Delete/bulk delete operation on audits/actionplan | 12:39 |
| chandankumar | let me take it from here | 12:39 |
| dviroel | hey chandankumar this is a follow up from dashboard session from the ptg | 12:39 |
| dviroel | :) | 12:40 |
| chandankumar | yes correct | 12:40 |
| chandankumar | Currently we have openstack optimize audit delete aud1 aud2 aud3 or openstack optimize actionplan delete ap1 ap2 ap3. | 12:40 |
| chandankumar | In both case, openstack cli sends a single delete request multiple times to delete the audit or actionplan. | 12:40 |
| chandankumar | From codewise, It performs a soft deletion on audit/actionplan, then we need to manually run watcher db purge to delete the audit/actionplan permanently from the DB. | 12:40 |
| chandankumar | I saw, When we delete an audit, it does not delete actionplan linked with the audit. Is it expected? or do we we want to extend to perform | 12:40 |
| chandankumar | a soft delete on the action plan also? | 12:40 |
| dviroel | I would not expect to delete all together | 12:41 |
| amoralej | yeah, i'd keep current behavior | 12:41 |
| dviroel | the action plan could still exist I think | 12:41 |
| dviroel | if we think on a future rollback mechanism | 12:42 |
| dviroel | user could use that action plan to rollback something | 12:42 |
| dviroel | note: this not exist today | 12:42 |
| dviroel | and would not be associated with the audit itself in this case | 12:42 |
| amoralej | even for audit purposes, one may want to keep the actionplans visible | 12:43 |
| dviroel | only with the action plan | 12:43 |
| dviroel | amoralej: yes | 12:43 |
| chandankumar | dviroel: amoralej thank you for clarifying it, it make sense to keep it as it is. | 12:44 |
| chandankumar | Moving to bulk delete topic | 12:44 |
| dviroel | is there a link from action plan to the audit? | 12:44 |
| dviroel | in the dashboard? that may break? | 12:44 |
| chandankumar | https://paste.openstack.org/raw/bh4xt1eZG8F4GgF2Amo6/ - this is what I have in the cli | 12:45 |
| chandankumar | once we delete an audit, in the actionplan list it is set to None | 12:45 |
| amoralej | so Audit is set as None | 12:45 |
| amoralej | it'd be interesting to check if it's removed in the db or managed in the api | 12:45 |
| chandankumar | https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/b5725d6ea60d3b7fb2d2b808b261ccdc547df7c4/watcher/api/controllers/v1/audit.py#L741 | 12:46 |
| chandankumar | based on the code, it perfrom soft_delete, I assume it just update the status to DELETED | 12:46 |
| dviroel | when it is soft delete, I guess that it will not appear anymore | 12:48 |
| dviroel | but it will be on the db | 12:48 |
| amoralej | yes, it is | 12:48 |
| amoralej | my question was if the audit field for that actionplan was removed in the db, sorry | 12:49 |
| amoralej | in soft_delete | 12:49 |
| amoralej | given that cli shows None | 12:49 |
| dviroel | ah ok | 12:49 |
| amoralej | or it's still in db, but the api is filtering it as it is soft_deleted | 12:49 |
| amoralej | just curiosity, np | 12:49 |
| chandankumar | amoralej: I will check that and get back on this. | 12:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | back | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | i woudl expect it to still be in the db | 12:50 |
| dviroel | this should be handled by the db | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | but it depend on hwo it was hooked up | 12:50 |
| dviroel | but the tl;dr; here is to not delete the Action Plan when the audit is deleted, I think that we agree with the current implementation | 12:52 |
| chandankumar | yes correct! | 12:52 |
| dviroel | chandankumar: you were about to bring another point in this topic | 12:52 |
| dviroel | ? | 12:53 |
| chandankumar | yes coming to that | 12:53 |
| chandankumar | Coming on bulk delete topic, Currently I found reference of bulk delete in swift API and in rest of the project there is no reference of that. | 12:53 |
| chandankumar | reference from swift https://github.com/openstack/swift/blob/master/swift/common/middleware/bulk.py | 12:53 |
| chandankumar | Since we have a requirement to do bulk archieve for audit/actionplan. How do we want to proceed with implementation? | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya so its not a common operation that need api support | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | well it depends | 12:54 |
| amoralej | it would be asynchronous task ? | 12:54 |
| chandankumar | If an user passes openstack optimize audit delete aud1 aud2 aud3 , Does it will call bulk delete api, it will do a single api call to delete all the passed audits or it will delete all the audit and perform soft delete from the db? | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | archiving an action plan shoudl archive teh actions assocated wtih the plan | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | archiving a one shot audit coudl do the same, but that is less clear that it shoudl | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | certenly if we want the behavior to be the same for contious audit we woudl nto want ti too | 12:55 |
| amoralej | archiving an actionplan already archives the actions | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | but yes at the api level we could take the uuids as a list in the query stirng | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | form a http point of view the delete method is not expected ot have a body | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | so if we dont want to hit the quary string lenght limit | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | the othe roption wouls be a post to a new api endpoint with the auits or action plans to archive listed in json in the boday | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | the final optoin i see is takign a `cacade` or simialr query arg to the audit delete | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | to opt into archiing the action plans as well | 12:58 |
| chandankumar | currently we donot archive actionplan if we archieve audit | 12:58 |
| dviroel | we could, if the user decide to do that with an option, but yeah, we don't do by default | 12:59 |
| amoralej | i like the idea of making it an option | 12:59 |
| dviroel | i mean, we don't support that | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that 3 related optiosn `DELETE /audit/<uuid>?cacade=true` `DELETE /actionplan/?uuids=....` or `POST /archive with a json body` | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | the ohter option woudl be do do it client side only which im not sure is correct | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | if we were to just do it in the watcher dashbaord it woudl have to be server side in the plugin not in javascript | 13:01 |
| * dviroel time check | 13:01 | |
| sean-k-mooney | i think there is enoguh dicusion here to show that in any case this need a spec | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | do we agree? | 13:02 |
| amoralej | i'd expect horizon to provide some support for bulk? | 13:02 |
| dviroel | yes | 13:02 |
| chandankumar | from dashboard point of view , use can click on bulk archieve button to archieve all audit? | 13:02 |
| dviroel | yes -> agree that we need a spec | 13:02 |
| amoralej | +1 to spec | 13:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | im not sure we need this at all by the way | 13:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | my general prefence woudl be to have an expiry time on the audit/action plans | 13:03 |
| amoralej | i see it as a nice-to-have requirement, tbh | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | both for howlong an pending action plan is retains and completed ones | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | so a time to live for unappoved action plans | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | and an expiry time before they are auto archived | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we can talk about the usecase in the spec | 13:04 |
| dviroel | expiry time is also a good idea from my pov | 13:04 |
| sean-k-mooney | and then desing the correct feature or feature to adress that | 13:04 |
| dviroel | chandankumar: yeah, we need more time to think about and the spec would be a good starting point, describing the uses cases and possible solutions | 13:05 |
| chandankumar | + for expiry time, Does is it going to be a seperate feature? | 13:05 |
| dviroel | and maybe we can revisit in future meetings if needed | 13:05 |
| chandankumar | I got more info for the spec now, I will start working on that | 13:05 |
| sean-k-mooney | we can scope that doen in the spec | 13:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | if its too complicate we can split it | 13:06 |
| dviroel | +1 | 13:06 |
| chandankumar | +1 | 13:06 |
| chandankumar | thank you all ! | 13:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | if not we can have one spec for audit/action lifetimes | 13:06 |
| dviroel | thanks chandankumar | 13:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | and cover the watcher ui and cli imapcts | 13:06 |
| dviroel | so we are out of time | 13:06 |
| dviroel | there are 2 links in the reviews topic | 13:07 |
| dviroel | #topic Reviews | 13:07 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/958766: Remove watcher_notifications from default value | 13:07 |
| dviroel | and | 13:07 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bug-2126767%22+and+status:open service_monitor for decision-engine | 13:07 |
| dviroel | we don't have time to go into details | 13:07 |
| dviroel | but we should be looking at those as requested | 13:07 |
| dviroel | amoralej: we can get you a topic at the start of next meeting if needed | 13:08 |
| amoralej | second one was just to bring those to your atenttion | 13:08 |
| dviroel | amoralej: ack, thanks | 13:08 |
| amoralej | we can discuss in the reviews | 13:08 |
| dviroel | #topic Volunteers to chair next meeting | 13:08 |
| jgilaber | I can do it dviroel | 13:08 |
| dviroel | jgilaber: TY | 13:08 |
| dviroel | so | 13:09 |
| dviroel | let's wrap up for today | 13:09 |
| dviroel | we will meet again next week | 13:09 |
| dviroel | thank you all for participating | 13:09 |
| dviroel | #endmeeting | 13:09 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu Nov 6 13:09:26 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 13:09 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2025/watcher.2025-11-06-12.01.html | 13:09 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2025/watcher.2025-11-06-12.01.txt | 13:09 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2025/watcher.2025-11-06-12.01.log.html | 13:09 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: [WIP] Set TEMPEST_VENV_UPPER_CONSTRAINTS in some jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966268 | 14:14 |
| dviroel | jgilaber: wouldn't yatin fixes solve our issues? | 14:26 |
| dviroel | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/966239? | 14:26 |
| jgilaber | probably, I was checking something similar | 14:27 |
| jgilaber | I'll open a DNM patch to check | 14:27 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: [DNM] Check if existing devstack patch fixes the jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966274 | 14:29 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: [DNM] Check if existing devstack patch fixes the jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966274 | 15:39 |
| jgilaber | dviroel, you were correct, it does fix the problem, I added the 2025.1 fix as depends-on and the 2025.1 functional job passed | 15:39 |
| dviroel | nice | 15:50 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Fix zone migration to accept dst_pool or dst_type https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/964776 | 16:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: dviroel so we may revert and do the tempet change slightly diffently gmaan has created a revert and im gogn to create a dnm to test it. | 17:22 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: ok, thanks for the update | 17:24 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: [DNM] tesing revert of tempest pin https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966311 | 17:26 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Fix zone migration to accept dst_pool or dst_type https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/964776 | 18:03 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!