| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-specs master: Add spec for improving watcher-dashboard testing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220 | 06:40 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Prepare to use openstacksdk instead of novaclient https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/974710 | 09:19 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Complete migration from novaclient to openstacksdk https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/974924 | 09:19 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Remove usage of novaclient from Watcher https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/974925 | 09:19 |
| chandankumar | Irc meeting starts in 5 mins. | 11:55 |
| chandankumar | #startmeeting watcher | 12:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu Jan 29 12:01:17 2026 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is chandankumar. 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 |
| chandankumar | o/ | 12:01 |
| dviroel | o/ | 12:01 |
| jgilaber | o/ | 12:01 |
| chandankumar | courtesy ping list: sean-k-mooney rlandy amoralej morenod | 12:01 |
| amoralej | o/ | 12:01 |
| morenod | o/ | 12:01 |
| rlandy | o/ | 12:01 |
| chandankumar | thank you for joining the meeting. | 12:02 |
| chandankumar | let's get started with the today's meeting agenda | 12:02 |
| chandankumar | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L23 | 12:02 |
| chandankumar | feel free to add your topic to the agenda | 12:02 |
| chandankumar | #topic Reset the DPL model for watcher project | 12:03 |
| chandankumar | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/974926 | 12:03 |
| chandankumar | Since new openstack release is coming, TC has proposed the above patch to reset the DPL model for watcher project | 12:04 |
| chandankumar | for 2026.2, Do we want to continue the DPL model or anyone wants to step up for Watcher PTL? | 12:05 |
| dviroel | o/ | 12:05 |
| chandankumar | If we want to continue the DPL model in that case, we need to find liasions for different tasks. | 12:05 |
| dviroel | i do have plans to add my candidacy for PTL for next cycle | 12:06 |
| dviroel | so i would propose to allow the DPL reset patch merge | 12:06 |
| chandankumar | dviroel: wonderful! | 12:06 |
| chandankumar | dviroel: I think We still need liasions for different task to assist PTL during the whole release. | 12:07 |
| dviroel | right! | 12:07 |
| dviroel | i would still need assistance for liaisons in release and security context at least :) | 12:08 |
| chandankumar | jgilaber: and me are the current liasons for release and sean-k-mooney was looking after security. | 12:08 |
| chandankumar | we can check with them if they want to continue for next release. | 12:09 |
| jgilaber | thanks for stepping up dviroel I can continue as release liaison | 12:09 |
| chandankumar | I also happy to help anywhere if you need more hands. | 12:10 |
| dviroel | jgilaber: tks, we can chat about that after elections then, which start in the following weeks | 12:10 |
| dviroel | #link https://governance.openstack.org/election/ | 12:10 |
| dviroel | someone needs to be elected first :) | 12:10 |
| chandankumar | PTL nominations will start next week i.e 4th Feb. | 12:10 |
| dviroel | +1 | 12:11 |
| jgilaber | for now we just need to +1 the TC patch to reset to PTL and that it right? | 12:11 |
| dviroel | right | 12:11 |
| jgilaber | ack thanks | 12:12 |
| chandankumar | everyone feel free to add your votes on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/974926 | 12:12 |
| dviroel | ack | 12:13 |
| chandankumar | I think we are all sorted on this topic. we have a upcoming PTL nomination from dviroel and new liasons. Anything more to discuss on this | 12:13 |
| rlandy | +1 | 12:13 |
| dviroel | we can continue I think | 12:13 |
| chandankumar | next topic | 12:14 |
| chandankumar | #topic Deciding watcher-dashboard integration testing framework | 12:14 |
| chandankumar | We are already discussing about watcher-dashboard integration testing poc in multiple meetings. | 12:14 |
| chandankumar | I have updated the spec with selenium vs playwright comparison for a watcher developer point of view: | 12:14 |
| chandankumar | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220/10/specs/2026.2/approved/improve-watcher-dashboard-ui-testing.rst#L163 | 12:15 |
| chandankumar | html version: https://abad4d81dfb03b4f334d-70b013fe9ea05f673313d916271f541a.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/openstack/b38087f5bdb4410294bd985e1d93a099/docs/specs/2026.2/approved/improve-watcher-dashboard-ui-testing.html#playwright-vs-selenium-poc-notes-watcher-developer-view | 12:15 |
| chandankumar | I wanted to check with the team to make a final decision on integration testing framework | 12:15 |
| chandankumar | so that Devs can start adding the integration tests for watcher-dashboard features. | 12:15 |
| morenod | I've been playing with playwright. my vote is for it | 12:16 |
| jgilaber | I have no direct experience, but my impression from reviewing the POCs and spec, and from previous discussions it seems playwright has some advantages over selenium | 12:17 |
| jgilaber | so +1 from me | 12:17 |
| amoralej | everything i saw from playwright seems to sounds as better or equal than selenium in testing capabilities and user experience | 12:17 |
| chandankumar | How do we want to vote on this? Do we need +1 on the spec itself with the test framework name? | 12:17 |
| amoralej | by user, i mean developers :) | 12:17 |
| amoralej | and also for integration in CI jobs | 12:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | well normally we dont vote persay | 12:18 |
| jgilaber | imo we should update the spec to propose playwright as the test framework | 12:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | more lazy concenus | 12:18 |
| jgilaber | and list selenium as a possible alternative | 12:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | but it seam we are gravatating to playright | 12:18 |
| dviroel | chandankumar: you did a great job on both PoCs +1 - taking over the notes I have the impression that playwright is best | 12:18 |
| amoralej | and i guess we will be able to handle adding it to the global-requirements | 12:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | so what i woudl suggest is to update the spec to propsoe using that and move selenium to the alternives section | 12:19 |
| chandankumar | wonderful, everyone is in favor of selenium. | 12:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: ya that should not be hard but we should start the process early | 12:19 |
| amoralej | +1 | 12:19 |
| chandankumar | *everyone is in favor of playwright | 12:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | dont you mean playrgiht | 12:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | :) | 12:19 |
| chandankumar | I will update the spec with playwright and move selenium as a alternative. | 12:20 |
| dviroel | +1 | 12:20 |
| chandankumar | Thank you all for taking the time to go over spec and poc and finalizing the tool. | 12:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok then once you have updated the spec to say that we can review it and start working on the reqiurements change and reviwign the changes once the master banch is 2026.2 | 12:20 |
| chandankumar | +1 | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | are we finished with this topic | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | if so before we go to reviews per the adgenda i woudl like to talk abotu some release stuff | 12:21 |
| amoralej | thanks chandankumar++ | 12:22 |
| chandankumar | yes | 12:22 |
| chandankumar | sean-k-mooney: sure | 12:22 |
| chandankumar | #topic release | 12:22 |
| chandankumar | sean-k-mooney: please go ahead | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok so first release topic. let try and do some stable release next week. my proposal is lets do some stable reviews today and tomorrwo and then work on proposing the release early next week | 12:23 |
| dviroel | +1 | 12:23 |
| jgilaber | +1 | 12:23 |
| chandankumar | +1 | 12:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | second related topic is we are startign to get close to FF so there are some release tasks liek starting on the prelude and marketing highlight that we will need to start soon | 12:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | we have another week or two before we actully need to do those so that just an fyi that we shoudl consult the chronalgical release guide and prepare for those tasks in the next few weeks | 12:24 |
| sean-k-mooney | we can loop back to that in the next meeting or the one after | 12:24 |
| sean-k-mooney | that was basically all i wanted to bring up | 12:25 |
| chandankumar | Do we need a voluteer for creating prelude and marketing highlights? | 12:25 |
| rlandy | I can try | 12:26 |
| jgilaber | I can also help with that | 12:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | they offially are duties of the release liason but anyone can propose them | 12:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | it just need a release liason to approve the marketing highlight patch in the release repo | 12:26 |
| jgilaber | just checked, FF is the week of Feb 23 - Feb 27 | 12:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep and the non clinet lib freeze if feb 9th | 12:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | well week of feb 9th | 12:27 |
| chandankumar | rlandy: jgilaber thank you for volunteering. | 12:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | the prelude shoudl be doen at or aroudn FF but before RC1 the hilights shoudl be the first week of march at the latest | 12:28 |
| chandankumar | Once the prelude review is up, we can follow up in next meeting . | 12:28 |
| chandankumar | ok | 12:29 |
| chandankumar | just to summarize: We will focus on reviews for stable branches this week to prepare a new stable release next week. Release liason will work on crafting the prelude and marking stuff. | 12:31 |
| chandankumar | Anything else to discuss on this topic | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya so we have 3-4 weeks for those artifact to be created but its just good to start a head of time so we are not in a rush | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | we can likely move to the reviews i think we are dont with this topic | 12:32 |
| chandankumar | #topic reviews | 12:32 |
| chandankumar | #link Enable extra zone migration tests on master branch | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/970381 | 12:32 |
| jgilaber | I added this patch | 12:34 |
| chandankumar | As the review says it enables extra zone migration tests on master branch, Depends on already got merged. | 12:34 |
| jgilaber | it's a small patch adding some zone migration tests that we put behing a config flag in the tempest plugin | 12:34 |
| jgilaber | they work in master, but need some bugfixes to be backported in the stable branches | 12:35 |
| jgilaber | the patch is only for master, I can backport it as well once/if we merge those bugfixes | 12:35 |
| dviroel | +1 | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | looks fine to me | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | double workflow :) | 12:36 |
| jgilaber | thanks! | 12:36 |
| dviroel | lol | 12:36 |
| chandankumar | wonderful | 12:36 |
| chandankumar | #link stable 2025.2 open reviews: https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/watcher+branch:stable/2025.2+is:open | 12:36 |
| dviroel | i added these earlier | 12:37 |
| dviroel | just to reminder about stable branches reviews | 12:37 |
| chandankumar | we have many reviews which needs one more +2 and +w in 2025.2 | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | ah i see you found time to review them last week cool | 12:37 |
| dviroel | I did some reviews on 2025.2 and will start 2025.1 | 12:37 |
| chandankumar | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/watcher+branch:stable/2025.1+is:open | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | cool i will look at them after the meeting as well | 12:38 |
| chandankumar | everyone please have a look at 2025.1 and 2025.2 series, it will help us to make new release next week | 12:38 |
| chandankumar | that's it from review | 12:38 |
| chandankumar | #topic Bugs | 12:39 |
| chandankumar | I can see two untriaged bugs in watcher-tempest-plugin | 12:40 |
| chandankumar | #link Race condition in test_continuous_audit_actionplan_superseding https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher-tempest-plugin/+bug/2136124 | 12:40 |
| sean-k-mooney | it sound valid proably medium | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | any instablity causes ci impact that we want to avoid | 12:41 |
| chandankumar | thanks sean-k-mooney | 12:42 |
| chandankumar | triaged ! | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | my guess is we need a retry loop to stablise it | 12:43 |
| amoralej | or cancel the old actionplans after the new one is created instead | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | perhaps | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | i guess either would be ok | 12:44 |
| dviroel | amoralej: do you have a patch or plan to work on one? | 12:44 |
| amoralej | not | 12:44 |
| amoralej | just reported, tbh | 12:45 |
| amoralej | but I'd say, the alternative is to move cancelling around https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/2ba9caae744db2f62e6a57e25069ac364ec54ffc/watcher/decision_engine/audit/base.py#L94 | 12:45 |
| dviroel | ack, just want to know to update the assignee | 12:46 |
| amoralej | although, we may have the oposite race condition ... | 12:46 |
| amoralej | having two recommended APs for a while | 12:46 |
| amoralej | the retrying loop doesn't sounds bad now :) | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | we shouldnt | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | becuase the previousl recommened plan shoudl be move to superceeded | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | we may have a bug if we we are not doing both in a single transaction i guess | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | that woudl be a watcher bug | 12:48 |
| amoralej | yes, that's the issue | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | as i dont think we are ever meent to have more the 1 recomemend action plan | 12:49 |
| amoralej | no, we shouldn't | 12:49 |
| amoralej | we need to make both state changes atomically | 12:50 |
| amoralej | adding the new AP and changing the state of the old one | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep hence same transaction or we woudl neeed a db trigger | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | we dont tend to use triggers in openstack so same transacton woudl be the correct fix | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | lets revisit this when someone starts working on the bug fix but we might end up fixing it in watcher instead | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | we shoudl dig a little deeper before updating the test | 12:52 |
| amoralej | btw, we don't use SUPERSEDED state for this use case (old APs in a continuous Audit, when a new one is created) but CANCELLED | 12:52 |
| amoralej | we use superseded only for time based expiration iirc | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | so cacled for an action plan si only valid if the action plan is runnng | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | and if it running it should not be canceld by the creation fo a new action plan | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | it should run to completion | 12:54 |
| amoralej | https://docs.openstack.org/watcher/latest/architecture.html#action-plan-state-machine | 12:54 |
| amoralej | APs can be moved from RECOMMENDED to CANCELLED | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | if and only if a admin does it | 12:55 |
| amoralej | that's actually used when an user wants to avoid running it | 12:55 |
| amoralej | yes, exactly | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | right but if we are testing supperceded as the name impleis the tempst shoudl not call cancel at all | 12:55 |
| amoralej | well, in current implementation alse for continuous audits when a new AP is created | 12:55 |
| amoralej | ah, superseding is actually missleading | 12:56 |
| amoralej | continuous actionplans do not use superseded status right now | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | right so that a bug | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | a diffent bug but a bug | 12:56 |
| amoralej | yeah, it'd may make sense use superseded instead of cancelled for this | 12:56 |
| amoralej | dunno if that's documented tbh | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | watcher should not move it to canceled when the new action plan is created | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | well that what the state machine doc says we shoudl be doing | 12:57 |
| dviroel | yeah, that's my understanding to, from the docs/state machine | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | i dont think there shoudl be an state change form recommend to cancheld ever for what its worth | 12:58 |
| amoralej | so the bug is "Watcher is setting previous APs as CANCELLED instead of SUPERSEDED when a new one is created in a CONTINUOUS audit" ? | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | you should be able to go form recommend to deleted directly or recommend to supseeded automaticlly | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | right cnceled should only be reachable form the ongoing state in my view | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | well perhaps also form bending | 13:00 |
| amoralej | or by admin api call, right? | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | *pending | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | no | 13:00 |
| chandankumar | here is the action plan state machine diagram https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/master/doc/source/image_src/plantuml/action_plan_state_machine.txt | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | im saying that is not somethign we shoudl be supproting | 13:01 |
| amoralej | we need it with the current wf | 13:01 |
| amoralej | as we can not delete a recommended AP | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | right im saying that workflow is invlaid semanticly | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | the replacement workflow would be recommend to deleted directly or recomened eto superseeded | 13:01 |
| amoralej | tbh, i think it's fine a user can CANCEL it before deleting it | 13:02 |
| amoralej | deleting it means, no way to see it anymore | 13:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | i dont think cancel is valid if it not running (pending or ongoing) that my general point if it did not start it cant be canceled | 13:02 |
| dviroel | yeah, what looks weird is to Cancel something that was not even running/started | 13:02 |
| amoralej | someone may be interested in running an audit, cancel but keep it to see the efficacy indicators, i.e. and compare to a new execution of the audit | 13:03 |
| amoralej | we may use a different state name, but imo, the use case is valid | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | right so a user shoudl be able to delete the recommened action plan. and watcher shoudl automaticlly mvoe ti to superseded instead of cancled when a new action plan is created IMO | 13:03 |
| amoralej | anyway, I will report this bug, no need to agree on a solution now | 13:04 |
| sean-k-mooney | lets leave this for now and leave a note in the bug | 13:04 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack | 13:04 |
| dviroel | +1 | 13:04 |
| chandankumar | I am moving to last topic as we passed the meeting time limit | 13:05 |
| chandankumar | #topic volunteer for next meeting | 13:05 |
| chandankumar | anyone up for chairing the next meeting? | 13:05 |
| morenod | I will | 13:06 |
| chandankumar | thanks morenod | 13:06 |
| chandankumar | #endmeeting | 13:07 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu Jan 29 13:07:04 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 13:07 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-01-29-12.01.html | 13:07 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-01-29-12.01.txt | 13:07 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-01-29-12.01.log.html | 13:07 |
| chandankumar | thank you all for joining the meeting! | 13:07 |
| dviroel | thanks chandankumar | 13:07 |
| jgilaber | thanks chandankumar! | 13:07 |
| morenod | thanks chandankumar++ | 13:07 |
| amoralej | thanks chandankumar++ | 13:07 |
| amoralej | btw, the current workflow is documented in https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/master/doc/source/user/continuous_type_audit.rst?plain=1#L84-L86 we need to fix it if we change it | 13:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | that new docs that chandan wrote 4 months ago https://github.com/openstack/watcher/commit/3c8bc6be6236335d6558bd6576f3f72351f224f1 | 13:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that not nessicarly correct | 13:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | its documenting the current flow yes but not the intended flwo/api contract | 13:11 |
| amoralej | yep, no problem with changing it | 13:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | we would have to look at the orginal specs | 13:12 |
| amoralej | reported https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher-tempest-plugin/+bug/2139344 | 13:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/watcher-specs/specs/newton/implemented/continuously-optimization.html | 13:15 |
| sean-k-mooney | To keep track of the triggered audit, notification has to be pushed on the message bus every time the audit is re-triggered. When a new action plan is proposed, Watcher should cancel all the previously generated action plans (and actions) with same Audit Template become obsolete and therefore their state should be changed to CANCELLED. | 13:16 |
| amoralej | yep | 13:16 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya so that soudn like a design bug | 13:16 |
| sean-k-mooney | but if we want to change it it more of a feature or enhacment | 13:16 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i guess we need to condier the upgrade impact | 13:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | for now we may want to rename the test to make this clearer | 13:17 |
| amoralej | IMO, it'd be more correct to use SUPERSEDED but it's low priority enhancement | 13:18 |
| *** user is now known as Guest788 | 13:18 | |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Prepare to use openstacksdk instead of novaclient https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/974710 | 18:59 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Complete migration from novaclient to openstacksdk https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/974924 | 18:59 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Remove usage of novaclient from Watcher https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/974925 | 18:59 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Change id field to uuid when appropiate https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/975200 | 18:59 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher master: Enable extra zone migration tests on master branch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/970381 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | Myles Penner proposed openstack/watcher master: Fix Sphinx build failure with Python 3.14 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/975231 | 22:34 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher stable/2025.2: Ignore cinder notifications if the Storage model is empty https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/963237 | 23:18 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!