| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-specs master: Add spec for improving watcher-dashboard testing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220 | 06:05 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Playwright-based E2E testing framework https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/970353 | 06:39 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Playwright-based E2E testing framework https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/970353 | 06:52 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Playwright-based E2E testing framework https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/970353 | 07:30 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Playwright-based E2E testing framework https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/970353 | 08:23 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Playwright-based E2E testing framework https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/970353 | 09:13 |
| dviroel | hello all, watcher meeting will start in 8 min, please add your topics to our meeting etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L30 | 11:52 |
| dviroel | #startmeeting watcher | 12:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu Apr 9 12:00:55 2026 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dviroel. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 12:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 12:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'watcher' | 12:00 |
| amoralej | o/ | 12:01 |
| dviroel | hi all o/ | 12:01 |
| morenod | o/ | 12:01 |
| jgilaber | o/ | 12:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | o/ | 12:01 |
| chandankumar | o/ | 12:01 |
| dviroel | courtesy ping: | 12:01 |
| dviroel | ah! everybody is around :) | 12:02 |
| dviroel | let's start with today's meeting agenda | 12:02 |
| dviroel | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L30 (Meeting agenda) | 12:02 |
| dviroel | as usual, feel free to add your own topics to the agenda | 12:02 |
| dviroel | #topic Any objection to moving the stable/2024.2 to eol | 12:03 |
| dviroel | jgilaber: thanks for raising this topic | 12:03 |
| dviroel | so according with | 12:03 |
| dviroel | #link https://releases.openstack.org/ | 12:03 |
| dviroel | the Dalmatian eol is estimated 2026-04-29 | 12:04 |
| amoralej | isn't EOL coordinated to all projects after the last change in lifecycle? | 12:04 |
| amoralej | i mean coordinated from TC | 12:04 |
| amoralej | or release project, i'm not sure | 12:05 |
| jgilaber | supposedly, but in reality it did not happen last cycle | 12:05 |
| dviroel | yeah, I think that the question is if we are happy with its content or if we want to merge more backports? | 12:05 |
| jgilaber | I submitted a patch to move unmaintained/2023.1 to eol | 12:06 |
| jgilaber | so we can wait until the estimated date and see if it happens | 12:06 |
| dviroel | yeah, but I remember a discussion around that at that time | 12:06 |
| jgilaber | but we can also dicuss what dviroel suggests, is there anything we want to get there before eol? | 12:06 |
| amoralej | how was 2023.2 managed? | 12:07 |
| jgilaber | I guess not but it's worth to highlight it here I think | 12:07 |
| amoralej | for 2023.2 the branch was removed without intervention from the project, i guess? | 12:07 |
| morenod | question: when a version reachs eol, we remove it from gate and check jobs? | 12:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | o/ | 12:08 |
| jgilaber | sean-k-mooney, sent a patch to move it to eol https://github.com/openstack/releases/commit/3a9a33528cf532be0bad1cfbfb8679742d024374 | 12:08 |
| amoralej | yes, actually, the entire branch is removed | 12:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes | 12:08 |
| amoralej | that's just creating a new tag, not managing branches | 12:08 |
| amoralej | so, yeah, we should do the same | 12:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | so 2024.2 is not eligable to be unmaintained | 12:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | no .2 brabces are and they move to eol directly | 12:09 |
| amoralej | i'd expect the releases project to send the patch for the tag, but we can also do it | 12:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | only slurp release can go to unmainteied and there shoudl only ever be 1 unmainteind branch under the polciy | 12:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya elod will likely do it en mass but we can do it our selves | 12:10 |
| dviroel | that's my expectation too | 12:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | i have a ptach up for the cybrog-tempsest-plugin i belive to drop the 2024.2 job but we need to do the same for watcher | 12:11 |
| amoralej | about the question of backports https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/watcher+branch:stable/2024.2 maybe we could spend some time merging the open ones passing ci ? | 12:11 |
| jgilaber | so by the end of the month both 2024.1 and 2024.2 should move to eol, right? | 12:11 |
| dviroel | but now about our 2024.2 branch, do we have someone available to work on getting unit tests and ci passing? | 12:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | 2024.2 is blocked due to issue win the requriement project | 12:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | 2024.1 wont be eol unless we chosoe not to opt back in | 12:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | but it would be eol next release when 2025.1 is demoted form stable to unmaintaned | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | currently the stable branchs are 2026.1 2025. | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | currently the stable branchs are 2026.1 2025.2 and 2025.1 | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | so when 2026.2 is relsaed 2025.1 -> unmainteded and 2024.1 -> eol | 12:13 |
| jgilaber | ah ok, I misread the timeline and though 2025.1 would become unmaintained now, but it's next cycle, got it | 12:13 |
| amoralej | yep ^ that's it | 12:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | i will note that the ptl can retire unmainted barnches early at any time | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | there exisating requries an opt in | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | and if the gates are not passing we can retire them for lack of maiatnace | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | so if we chose to we can eol 2024.1 early since it broken because of pkg_resouces | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we dont have too | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | passing ci is ment to be a requiremnt at the start of each release so techinally since it not green it shoudl eb retired | 12:15 |
| dviroel | not sure how reliable is 2024.1, i didn't really deployed this release | 12:16 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya its a judgement call at the end of the day | 12:16 |
| amoralej | i just recheck a patch to see how ci is failing | 12:16 |
| amoralej | is the pkg_resources the problem there? | 12:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: it probaly going to fail on setuptools droping pkg_resouces | 12:17 |
| amoralej | yeah, let's see | 12:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: yes so that is not fixed in the requireemnt repo on 2024.2 so 2024.1 is also broken as are most older relases | 12:17 |
| amoralej | yep https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/b59e34afb9ea4b27a8a99c473ab25b4e | 12:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | but lest see what your patch show | 12:18 |
| amoralej | that's from my recheck | 12:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | for a while the older banchces tghat ran on jammy were passign but that broke after virutalenv updated there bundeled setuptools | 12:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | well thats on stable/2024.2 not stable/2024.1 | 12:19 |
| amoralej | so, i wouldn't invest any more time in the backports | 12:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | right i would however say doing a 2025.1 release might be nice | 12:19 |
| amoralej | +1 | 12:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | so spending some tiem on the supprot stable branches | 12:20 |
| dviroel | right | 12:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | chandankumar: out of interst did you or jgilaber update the serise to mark 2026.1 as the newest supproted branch | 12:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | and mark 2024.2 as unsupproted (obsolete?) in lachpad yet | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | now that the officall release has happend we shoudl update that | 12:21 |
| chandankumar | sean-k-mooney: thank you for the ping, let me do that | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | is there more on this topic or shall we move on | 12:22 |
| dviroel | lets move on | 12:22 |
| dviroel | #topic PTG | 12:22 |
| dviroel | our ptg planning etherpad is available at: Call for topics: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/watcher-2026.2-ptg | 12:23 |
| dviroel | so, if you plan to discuss anything in watcher, that is not cover by the already proposed topics | 12:23 |
| dviroel | fell free to add new ones | 12:24 |
| dviroel | you can also choose to work with someone in a specific topic | 12:24 |
| sean-k-mooney | we shoudl proably ahve a deprecatoion/deletion topic | 12:24 |
| sean-k-mooney | basicly maas/ironic deprecaiton and removal | 12:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | or some other topic like that | 12:25 |
| dviroel | right, i was planning to cover in the Datasources and Integrations topicv | 12:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack that works | 12:25 |
| dviroel | there is also the Prometheus there to discuss | 12:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | if we dont add an ironci job this cycle i think we shoudl jsut look to remove it | 12:25 |
| dviroel | ack, we should also have a testing/ci topic that can prioritize this | 12:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we can discss the details and timelien in the ptg | 12:26 |
| dviroel | yeah | 12:26 |
| dviroel | do we all agree with the initial schedule for Watcher? | 12:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | i am wondering if we want to add some cybrog awareness this cycle | 12:26 |
| dviroel | https://ptg.opendev.org/ptg.html | 12:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | that coudl be a topic. | 12:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | i.e. you cant live migrate with cyborg so make our stagies aware of that | 12:27 |
| dviroel | that could be a good topic yes | 12:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: in terms of timetable i think that good | 12:27 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Playwright-based E2E testing framework https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/970353 | 12:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | the fact that we start an horu earlier and end an hour eailr then nova each day give at least 1 hour a day wehre we dont have a conflict | 12:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | you also avoid the tc slots and i thinke 3 days shoudl be enouch time | 12:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | i booked the cyborg slot for monday/tuesday so there will be no conflcit | 12:28 |
| dviroel | we can, the PTG schedule track doesn't provide that slot only (the one hour earlier) | 12:29 |
| sean-k-mooney | well no its already correct | 12:29 |
| sean-k-mooney | wather starts at 13:00 utc -> 16:00 utc | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | nova is 14:00-17:00 slot | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | so both are 4 hours with a one hour offset | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that good i think | 12:30 |
| dviroel | oh, i understood that you were suggesting starting one hour earlier (i.e 12:00 utc) | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | no | 12:31 |
| dviroel | ah ok | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think the slots you booked are good | 12:31 |
| dviroel | ack | 12:31 |
| dviroel | anything else in this topic? we should revisit this next week | 12:32 |
| amoralej | i'll check the list and update the scalability part | 12:32 |
| dviroel | for now, please focus on adding topics to the etherpad, so we can check the sessions that you plan to cover/discuss | 12:32 |
| dviroel | amoralej: ack tks | 12:32 |
| dviroel | #topic Eventlet-removal | 12:33 |
| dviroel | this is just a quick update | 12:33 |
| dviroel | just to note that threading is now the default concurrency mode | 12:33 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/980818 | 12:33 |
| amoralej | dviroel++ | 12:34 |
| dviroel | this patch merged 2 days ago, so when deploying watcher you will not be using eventlet by default anymoew | 12:34 |
| amoralej | so the only remaining task is to remove eventlet option in one or two releases, right? | 12:34 |
| dviroel | just in case you see any bug, performance issues, please feel free to reach us or file a bug | 12:35 |
| dviroel | amoralej: correct, i will update the DNM patch (that removes all eventlet code) that I have to get more CI updates | 12:35 |
| amoralej | great | 12:35 |
| dviroel | we should have a 10m session about evenlet removal in PTG | 12:36 |
| dviroel | we can agree on the next step about the removal | 12:36 |
| dviroel | so, moving to next topic | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | so the proejct wide concensou seam to be eventlet removal does nto require deprecation | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | which means we can remove it at any time bu ti woudl sugete we shoudl only do it after we have had a relase with it as the defualt | 12:37 |
| dviroel | yeah | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | so removal woudl not happen until at least 2027.1 | 12:37 |
| dviroel | ack, and we will be still in the community schedule too | 12:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | that also what nova is working towards i think | 12:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think there will be an eventlet cross project at the ptg | 12:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | so we shoudl try to attend that | 12:38 |
| dviroel | yep, it may happen early in the ptg week | 12:38 |
| dviroel | ok, next one is from amoralej | 12:39 |
| dviroel | #topic Freezeing the reply to API datamodel list | 12:39 |
| amoralej | in last PTG we discussed about that in order to avoid requiring to bump API microversion on model updates | 12:39 |
| dviroel | right | 12:40 |
| amoralej | freeze the content of the api call with current state and treat it as a internal thing | 12:40 |
| amoralej | did we agree on the approach? | 12:40 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya so it frozen by default as we are nto allwoe dot make change the alter the api respocen without a microverion | 12:40 |
| amoralej | seems reasonable to me | 12:40 |
| dviroel | we agreed on freezing it, but there is nothing blocking it in code/testing | 12:41 |
| amoralej | if we agree on that, it's something we could start working on as it would help other changes in the todo list | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: well that woudl violate the microverson contract | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | this is ment ot be tested and block by the api sample tests | 12:41 |
| amoralej | so, to manage the freeze itself, what would we need? | 12:41 |
| amoralej | in terms of tracking, i mean | 12:41 |
| amoralej | specless blueprint? | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | noting we are not changign anything | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | the current polciy is any change that has an api impact needs a spec | 12:42 |
| amoralej | but we need code so that changes in the model are not shown in the api call | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes | 12:42 |
| amoralej | so that would be managed as a ... bug? feature? | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we need to review for that and -2 any change that would alter any api respoce without an aprpoved spec | 12:42 |
| amoralej | or nothing :) | 12:43 |
| dviroel | yes, currently the code gets the model from decision-engine and expose it | 12:43 |
| amoralej | yep, that's my point, we need code to filter the fields to be included if anything new appears | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | so as i said above we should have api sample tests for every api microverion and evnetually openapi schemas too | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | so both of those if present shoudl fail if we acidnetly modfiy somehting | 12:43 |
| dviroel | but I guess that today our unit tests fail already if a new attribute is added | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/watcher/tree/master/api-ref/source/samples | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | those shoudl already deteact this in theory | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we need to verify that | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/master/api-ref/source/samples/datamodel-list-response.json | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | my guess is we don not currently ahve complete coverage | 12:45 |
| dviroel | not sure if we detect additional kv | 12:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/watcher/commit/03c09825f7421eac429034fb4e25ba089671077d | 12:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | well you extended it when you last did it | 12:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i assume that fialed | 12:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | we can tst it by just addign a filed in a DNM | 12:46 |
| dviroel | yeah, i added specific test for different microversion, but I will need to test again to see if it fails on LATEST with new content | 12:46 |
| * dviroel it should :) | 12:46 | |
| dviroel | i will check that and provide a feedback | 12:47 |
| amoralej | so the scope of the required change would be to add fields filtering in the api call + coverage to discover if anything new appears in the api call | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | so in other proejct the api sample tests are the primary way we verify microverion stablity | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we layer other test on top as well | 12:47 |
| amoralej | ^ am i correct? | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: you can basilly add a test=true | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | filed to hte model | 12:48 |
| dviroel | yeah, and see if tests will fail | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | taht shoudl cause the test to fail just hard code something | 12:48 |
| amoralej | ack | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | when we do it for real | 12:48 |
| dviroel | because in the past, that was a silent api change | 12:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | we will need to updat ethe respoce code to filter out the unsupproted files | 12:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | the same way that doug did for the older microveriosns | 12:49 |
| amoralej | yes, that was my initial point | 12:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | right that not a bug | 12:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | that a review reuqirement for any future spec that adds new datamodel files | 12:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | or any bugfix for the same | 12:49 |
| amoralej | yep | 12:50 |
| dviroel | alredy, amoralej lets sync afterwards that here in the channel | 12:50 |
| amoralej | ok | 12:50 |
| amoralej | thanks | 12:50 |
| dviroel | thanks for raising the topic | 12:51 |
| amoralej | i think we can move on | 12:51 |
| dviroel | #topic Reviews | 12:51 |
| dviroel | call for reviews on specs open: | 12:51 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/watcher-specs+status:open | 12:51 |
| dviroel | I have a particular spec that is under review | 12:51 |
| dviroel | TY all for reviewing it | 12:51 |
| dviroel | i would like to get some feedback on further discussions | 12:52 |
| dviroel | not sure if you all had time to read it | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | partly but not in full | 12:52 |
| dviroel | but I would like to antecipate, if possible, discussions around the design | 12:52 |
| amoralej | i missed last update | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | i have 1 or two pending comment but i wanted to better understand the relatship betwen pipeline action plans and audits | 12:53 |
| jgilaber | me too, I need to set aside to review the last few versions | 12:53 |
| dviroel | so if we have time, we can (next week), discuss more, answer questions | 12:53 |
| dviroel | we can continue also async in the spec, and discuss in the PTG topic 2 | 12:53 |
| dviroel | that will happen in 2 weeks | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | i was expectign the composaton to be pipeline create audits that prodces action plans but i think its differnt then that in the current spec | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i think that si one area tha ti wotn to udner stand the tade fofs better | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | if i understand correctly you want ationplans ot optionly be owned by a pipeline is that correct? | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | note i could be very wrong on that but that a qustion i had after my last skim pass | 12:55 |
| dviroel | today action plans are linked to audits only, 1:1 | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes | 12:55 |
| dviroel | the spec propose that this could now be linked to a audit pipeline, 1:1 too | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | are you propsoing changing that as i saw you mention adding the pipeline id ot i think the action plan table | 12:56 |
| amoralej | that was my understanding | 12:56 |
| dviroel | but that break additional parameters in the action plan: like strategy_id and goal_id | 12:56 |
| dviroel | which are there, not sure why, it is duplicating the info from the audit | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | you can have audits without audit templates | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | so you need to be able to speicy the goal/stragy on the audit dreictly if i recall correctly | 12:57 |
| amoralej | it's a good point about goal_id and strategy_id | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | rather then alwasy rely on it being in the template | 12:57 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: note that I mentioned Action Plan, it has goal_id and strategy_id | 12:58 |
| dviroel | allong with audit_id | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | right but action plans are jsut the oputput fo an audit | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | so those get populated from the audit | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | i belive that just for trackign but it coudl be looked up tnsitivly via the db relastionship so im not sure it required | 12:59 |
| dviroel | that one point yes | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: anyway the db model was the priamry thing i wanted to look at firt | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | ocne we have the right datamodle i think that will help reason about the rest | 13:00 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: ack, feel free to add comments, and in case that gets more complicated to discuss async, we can have a meeting | 13:00 |
| * dviroel time check | 13:00 | |
| sean-k-mooney | yep ill try to find time to do that early next week | 13:00 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: thanks | 13:00 |
| dviroel | and there are 2 other specs that are open for review two | 13:00 |
| dviroel | I already started looking at these too | 13:01 |
| dviroel | note that we also have some blueprints to be approved | 13:01 |
| dviroel | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/watcher | 13:01 |
| dviroel | which we can cover in the following meetings | 13:01 |
| dviroel | today we don't have more time | 13:01 |
| chandankumar | I have addressed all of the comments on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220: Add spec for improving watcher-dashboard testing , | 13:02 |
| dviroel | #topic Volunteers to chair next meeting | 13:02 |
| dviroel | chandankumar++ | 13:02 |
| chandankumar | feel free to take a revisit, thank you! | 13:02 |
| dviroel | I have a question: do we want to continue with meeting rotation for watcher? | 13:02 |
| * sean-k-mooney reaslise i never pushed one fo the spec i wrote last year. so i dont need to say i wont have time to work on it this cycle | 13:02 | |
| dviroel | I can chair the next one too | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | are you volenterring to chair it in genral going forward? | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | also i assume we will skip this the ptg week right? | 13:03 |
| dviroel | yeah, if nobody wants to chair, i can keep chairing them | 13:04 |
| sean-k-mooney | given we ar eover time lets dicuss it next week and assume you will chair that meeting | 13:04 |
| dviroel | correct, i am going to cancel the meeting in the PTG week | 13:05 |
| dviroel | yes | 13:05 |
| dviroel | let's wrap up for today | 13:05 |
| dviroel | we can discuss that afterwards | 13:05 |
| dviroel | thank you all for participating | 13:05 |
| dviroel | #endmeeting | 13:05 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu Apr 9 13:05:41 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 13:05 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-04-09-12.00.html | 13:05 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-04-09-12.00.txt | 13:05 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-04-09-12.00.log.html | 13:05 |
| morenod | thanks dviroel! | 13:05 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher master: DNM just check how tests fails when model is modified https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/983884 | 15:01 |
| -opendevstatus- NOTICE: Anubis is now deployed on our Gitea backends, and things are back to working normally though you may notice an Anubis screen flash briefly when starting to browse opendev.org; any jobs which failed prior to 15:00 UTC today can be safely rechecked | 15:35 | |
| amoralej | sean-k-mooney, dviroel https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/a69dd8e153b74841af8ac44c36608c3b from https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/983884 test fail when adding a new field | 15:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: ah the job has not repoted back yet | 15:50 |
| amoralej | no, i checked in zuul | 15:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | but that good watcher.tests.unit.api.v1.test_data_model.TestListDataModelResponse failed | 15:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | which is the api sample test | 15:51 |
| amoralej | https://zuul.openstack.org/status?change=983884%2C1 | 15:51 |
| amoralej | yep | 15:51 |
| amoralej | looks good | 15:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | testtools.matchers._impl.MismatchError: !=: | 15:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | Items in actual but not in expected: | 15:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | ['server_test'] | 15:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that fun we prefi them with server | 15:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | 'server_test', form adding test | 15:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: so if we wanted to actully add test we woudl need to update the code to pop it before we return the responce | 15:54 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Playwright-based E2E testing framework https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/970353 | 15:54 |
| amoralej | sean-k-mooney, yes, that's the plan | 15:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | are you ok with the existing coverage or do you think we need to do a review of the coverage for all api respocne | 15:57 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Playwright integration test for skip action workflow https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/976594 | 15:59 |
| dviroel | amoralej: thanks, good that at least would require api code change to have tests passing. | 16:26 |
| amoralej | sean-k-mooney, i need to check | 16:29 |
| amoralej | but if needed we can add it together with the filtering code | 16:29 |
| sean-k-mooney | so at some point we whuld be implementin openapi schema validation for request adn respocne | 16:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | when we do that atht will add a second layer of testing of this | 16:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | as any chagne to the api woudl require a schema chagne as well | 16:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | so we can build defense in depth here over time | 16:31 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher master: run hacking via local hook https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/983925 | 19:11 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher master: run hacking via local hook https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/983925 | 19:14 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher master: Convert remote pre-commit hooks to local pip hooks https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/983933 | 20:24 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher master: Add hook smoke-test script https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/983940 | 21:05 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!