| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher master: Fix disk accounting for BFV instances https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/986486 | 06:29 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher master: Fix disk accounting for BFV instances https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/986486 | 07:55 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add scenario tests for boot from volume instances https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/986616 | 08:17 |
| opendevreview | David proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add comprehensive tests for action precondition validation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966860 | 09:03 |
| opendevreview | David proposed openstack/watcher master: Enable skipped actions tests on watcher-tempest-base-two-node job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/986756 | 09:20 |
| opendevreview | David proposed openstack/watcher master: Enable skipped actions tests on watcher-tempest-base-two-node job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/986756 | 09:22 |
| opendevreview | David proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add comprehensive tests for action precondition validation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966860 | 09:33 |
| opendevreview | David proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add comprehensive tests for action precondition validation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966860 | 10:13 |
| winiciusallan[m] | morning watcher o/ | 10:14 |
| winiciusallan[m] | I won't be able to attend to the weekly meeting today, but from my side I'm currently working on preemptible instances spec | 10:15 |
| winiciusallan[m] | specifically in the "proposed change" section at this moment | 10:16 |
| winiciusallan[m] | hoping to bring new updates next week | 10:16 |
| sean-k-mooney | winiciusallan[m]: ack, once you have the first two sections into and porblem statement/usecases drafted you can push that draft up if you want early feedback | 10:29 |
| sean-k-mooney | but there is no rush | 10:29 |
| winiciusallan[m] | I would like a early feedback indeed. I will push a WIP patch soon (not this week anymore =D) | 10:31 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add scenario tests for boot from volume instances https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/986616 | 10:43 |
| jgilaber_ | Hi all, reminder that the watcher IRC meeting will start in one hour, feel free to add any topics to the agenda https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L31 | 11:01 |
| *** jgilaber_ is now known as jgilaber | 11:01 | |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher master: Freeze data_model API response fields https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/986777 | 11:28 |
| jgilaber | #startmeeting watcher | 12:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu Apr 30 12:01:25 2026 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jgilaber. 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 |
| jgilaber | Hi! Who is around today? | 12:01 |
| amoralej | o/ | 12:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | o/ | 12:01 |
| morenod | o/ | 12:01 |
| rlandy_ | o/ | 12:01 |
| *** rlandy_ is now known as rlandy | 12:02 | |
| dviroel | o/ | 12:02 |
| jgilaber | courtesy ping: chandankumar | 12:02 |
| jgilaber | let's start, feel free to add your topics to the agenda https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L31 | 12:03 |
| jgilaber | the first topic is from dviroel | 12:03 |
| jgilaber | #topic PTG Summary | 12:03 |
| dviroel | ack | 12:03 |
| jgilaber | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/FVV7K7T5FITK7QNPJLJN7P4FJL2WQJ4A/ | 12:03 |
| dviroel | we had great ptg sessions last week | 12:04 |
| dviroel | I build a summary of the topics that we discussed | 12:04 |
| dviroel | feel free to comment on the email thread in case i missed any important agreement | 12:04 |
| dviroel | in the ptg etherpad there is a list of Action items from the ptg | 12:05 |
| dviroel | some of them already have an assignee | 12:05 |
| amoralej | thanks for the summary dviroel | 12:05 |
| dviroel | if you plan to work on any of them, please add your name on it :) | 12:05 |
| dviroel | thanks for everyone that joined our sessions and for participating in the discussions | 12:06 |
| dviroel | just a reminder from our sessions: please update your blueprints/specs so we can follow up in the next weeks | 12:07 |
| sean-k-mooney | so | 12:07 |
| sean-k-mooney | one of the topic i realsise we never discssed | 12:07 |
| dviroel | i guess there is some already in the etherpad | 12:07 |
| sean-k-mooney | was the other part fo `New Metrics for Watcher` | 12:07 |
| sean-k-mooney | we dont need to dicss it now but we never discused if watcher shoudl also be a souce of metics (notifcaion) about its own operation | 12:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | i.e. how to make the oerpation of watcher itslef observable | 12:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | so just planting that as a seed for considertaion | 12:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | we brilfy touched on it for the short middelware discsion but it was in teh back of my mind when we were talkign about scalablity ectra in several fo the session | 12:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | but ya we can continue i just wanted to call that out | 12:10 |
| dviroel | which kind of operations were you thinking sean-k-mooney? | 12:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | well basiclly all of them to a degree | 12:10 |
| jgilaber | watcher already emits notifications when a strategy starts/ends I think | 12:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | i.e. how long does an autit take to run | 12:10 |
| amoralej | yep, it does | 12:10 |
| jgilaber | the idea is to export them to prometheus for example? | 12:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | well the idea is to have ceilometner do that for us | 12:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | it already does that for nova | 12:11 |
| dviroel | ack, like they are doing with cinder/manila | 12:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | converts start/end notificaion to metics in promethus | 12:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep | 12:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | so basiclly iw as thinkin we shoudl see if there are other point where we could/should send a notificaion | 12:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | that may be useful for monitoring the oepratoin of watcher | 12:12 |
| jgilaber | ack, did not know that | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | and talk to the telemetry team in the future about including watcher notifcaions in teh set they supprot | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | so you can buidl dashboard or alarms based on wathres operatrion | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | i.e. if we see an action plan is runginf ro an hour without compelting | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | tha tcould be a singal that its stuck | 12:13 |
| amoralej | for other services, ceilometer creates metrics for operations duration based on .start .end notifications, i.e. ? | 12:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes for server create for example | 12:13 |
| amoralej | that'd be nice | 12:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | as i said we dont need to talk about this in a lot of detail now | 12:14 |
| amoralej | yep, it's a good hint | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i realsed after the ptg that we missed the operturnity to really talk about that with the telemery tream | 12:14 |
| dviroel | ack, we can take that note for future discussions | 12:15 |
| jgilaber | it would be a good addition for sure | 12:15 |
| jgilaber | other comments on this topic? | 12:16 |
| dviroel | jgilaber: i think that it for the ptg summary topic | 12:16 |
| jgilaber | ack let's move on then, I have a few quick topics | 12:16 |
| jgilaber | #topic 2026.2 status etherpad | 12:16 |
| jgilaber | I created an etherpad to track the status of the current cycle | 12:17 |
| jgilaber | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/watcher-2026.2-status | 12:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | did we loos the link to that in the channel topic? | 12:17 |
| dviroel | jgilaber++ | 12:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | or did i just not update the topic in this channel? | 12:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | probaly the latter | 12:17 |
| jgilaber | I don't remember if it was there before | 12:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | any objection to me changing that | 12:17 |
| jgilaber | +1 to add it | 12:17 |
| dviroel | go4it | 12:18 |
| amoralej | +1 | 12:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok ill do it after the metting | 12:18 |
| jgilaber | ack, thanks sean-k-mooney | 12:18 |
| jgilaber | that's all for this topic, feel free to populate the etherpad with blueprints, specs,etc | 12:18 |
| jgilaber | next one is a quick announcement | 12:19 |
| jgilaber | #topci 2024.2 branch is eol | 12:19 |
| jgilaber | this morning the patch marking 2024.2 as eol was merged | 12:19 |
| jgilaber | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/984986 | 12:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | cool its even more impoant we merge amoralej patch to remove it form the tempest plugin so | 12:20 |
| dviroel | +1 | 12:20 |
| amoralej | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/986635 passed ci | 12:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | since the tempest jobs will now fail because the branch will be delete | 12:20 |
| jgilaber | yep, thanks for covering that amoralej | 12:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: can you add taht to your review list for after the meeting | 12:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | :) never mind i see you have already done it | 12:21 |
| dviroel | yeah done | 12:21 |
| jgilaber | thanks, anything else on this topic? | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | am | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | technially yes | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | so now that the branch is beting deleted we should abandon any patches for it in gerrit if not already done | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | just to clean them up | 12:22 |
| jgilaber | that was done by Elod earlier today | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | ah perfect | 12:22 |
| dviroel | yeah, elod was doing that, but I need to check if there is more | 12:22 |
| dviroel | https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/watcher+branch:stable/2024.2+is:+open | 12:22 |
| dviroel | no patche open | 12:23 |
| jgilaber | ok, I think we can proceed now | 12:24 |
| jgilaber | #topic openstacksdk blueprint | 12:25 |
| jgilaber | I'm reusing last cycle's blueprint for the openstacksdk work | 12:25 |
| jgilaber | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/watcher/+spec/use-openstacksdk | 12:25 |
| opendevreview | David proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add comprehensive tests for action precondition validation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966860 | 12:25 |
| jgilaber | do we need to re-approve it? what is the usual procedure? | 12:25 |
| jgilaber | I've updated the description with the work planned for this cycle | 12:26 |
| dviroel | i think that it is fine, we agreed in the spec on using the same blueprint | 12:26 |
| amoralej | yep, given that this blueprint has specs and are linked there, i think it's fine | 12:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: ideaaly you woudl create a new one | 12:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | blupring are ment to be targeted to a given release | 12:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that one shoudl have been closed as part fo 2026.1 and a new one shoudl be create for phase 2 | 12:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | part fo the reaosn for that s the saem way spec expire every release blueprint also do | 12:29 |
| sean-k-mooney | we also dont seam to have done the paper work correly on that last cyle unless the fiels were modifed | 12:29 |
| sean-k-mooney | we didnt actuly marke it as approved | 12:30 |
| jgilaber | I think I forgot to add the series, but the definition was set to Approved | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | but the direction is not and the impletion is not updated | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | nor is the approve set | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | so sticly spekign if you only look at that blueprint in its current state we shoudl nto merge any code related to it | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | conventionally the approve si the person that +w's the spec or any member of the core team that updates it after a spec less bluepint is approved in the meting | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | typiclly this falls to the ptl by default but anyoen on the core team can techinialy do the paperwrok | 12:32 |
| dviroel | I can update the fields | 12:33 |
| jgilaber | ack thanks for the explanation, I'll keep that in mind for the next cycle | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that bring up the related point. any spec that was approved but not implented last cyel techinlly need to be reviewd an aprpoved agian | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | we can chagne that process but that is the default that is used in other projects | 12:34 |
| dviroel | make sense, i can review them after this meeting | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | so are we goign to keep using https://blueprints.launchpad.net/watcher/+spec/use-openstacksdk or create https://blueprints.launchpad.net/watcher/+spec/use-openstacksdk-part-2 | 12:35 |
| jgilaber | we already merged the spec pointing to the existing blueprint | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | correct | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | and as i said to continut doing the work this cycle | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | we either need a new spec for this cycle | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | or we agree the reaminng work cna be specless | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | the merge spec expired at the end of last cyle | 12:36 |
| jgilaber | no, I mean the spec for this cycle | 12:36 |
| jgilaber | let me fetch the link | 12:37 |
| dviroel | we already merged the spec for 2026.2 | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh then we shoudl fix that | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | well ok we can resue it but that woudl gereally not be the norm | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | we can move on for now | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think we all agree the work shoudl continue | 12:37 |
| jgilaber | ack, noted. thanks | 12:37 |
| jgilaber | next topis is amoralej's blueprint | 12:38 |
| jgilaber | #topic Blueprint | 12:38 |
| jgilaber | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/watcher/+spec/improve-instances-disk-usage-model | 12:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | the reason we reset the aprpoveals by the way sis its not too uncopme for the orginal desing to nologer make sense after 2-3 fcycles due to other changes. | 12:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i kind of wish nova had a better way toshow this | 12:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i agree that we shoudl build in thei awareness going forward | 12:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | the fact image is not set with BFV is fragile and obscure | 12:39 |
| dviroel | we already have some review in the patch related to this blueprint | 12:39 |
| amoralej | wrt the improve-instances-disk-usage-model one, i created to track the work done to improve the disk accounting | 12:39 |
| amoralej | yep, there is ongoing implementation patch | 12:40 |
| dviroel | it seems that the patch is in sync with the proposal blueprint too | 12:40 |
| jgilaber | +1 the blueprint description lgtm | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | i would like to see teh tempst test passing before we proceed with merging the implemtion | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | adn we shoudl also create some docs for this and other known limaitons | 12:41 |
| amoralej | it passed some minutes back | 12:41 |
| dviroel | based on our discussions in the patch, and the blueprint description, i'm ok with approving the bp | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | the later can be done as a follow up | 12:41 |
| amoralej | but, wrt the bluepring | 12:41 |
| jgilaber | +1 | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i dont object to this being a specless bluepritn this cycle | 12:41 |
| amoralej | yeah, that was my question, about getting the blueprint can be approve or need something else | 12:41 |
| amoralej | wrt the patches we can discuss on the reviews, i think we clarified most open questions already | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i woudl liek two thing as 1 tempest tests which are in flight, and 2 a follwoup ot descibe how watcher reate BFV instnace and a general new doc for knwolimaitoin or nova feature that are not well supproted | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | this to me is just wone exampel fo that and we done need to hold the impelation part of the featur efor th larger docs work | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | the docs can be there own bug | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: jgilaber does that work for ye? | 12:44 |
| dviroel | i also think that documenting the limitation is very important, but it should be another LP yeah | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok let me update the paper work to reflect that now | 12:45 |
| jgilaber | yes, I think is good to track the doc in a separate bug | 12:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/watcher/+spec/improve-instances-disk-usage-model is updated ot what we shudl have set for an approved and inprogress bluepritn as an fyi | 12:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | that waht jgilaber shoudl also look like | 12:46 |
| jgilaber | thanks sean-k-mooney | 12:46 |
| amoralej | thanks! | 12:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | direction is ment to be set when we aggre this can be specless or need a spec but we agree with the overall idea | 12:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | if there is a spec you set definition ot approved once that is merged | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | status gets setn when you update the implemention field | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | and serise cogall and appvoe you jsut set to the person doing the edit/+wing the spec and the current release | 12:47 |
| jgilaber | thanks for taking the time to explain | 12:48 |
| jgilaber | moving to the next topic also from amoralej | 12:48 |
| jgilaber | #topic Stable releases review | 12:49 |
| amoralej | I spent some time reviewing backports in stable branches | 12:49 |
| amoralej | and i have a couple of doubts | 12:49 |
| amoralej | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/960717 | 12:49 |
| amoralej | I'd say changing default config is not recommended in stable branches | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | we shoudl nto backprot changes to default in general | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | new config yes but not change to defaults like that | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html | 12:51 |
| amoralej | I agree, actually this case is justa adding one more collector by default, so it's kind of "backwards compatible" but even with that's i'd prefer not to | 12:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#appropriate-fixes | 12:51 |
| jgilaber | that's fair, it's been a while since I proposed the backport. I probably did out of inertia since it was part of series of bug fixes | 12:51 |
| jgilaber | so I'm ok abandoning it | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | so we can do a partial backport | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | we just shoudl nto change the default of the config option | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | this is not just a config tweak there is some addtional machinary | 12:53 |
| dviroel | yeah, it seems that the issue would be only de config default | 12:53 |
| jgilaber | ack, I'll update the patch after the meeting, thanks for the reviews amoralej | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | if you do you shoudl ad a lien to the commti message sayign what has changed | 12:53 |
| jgilaber | sure | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | for what its worth this si why we normally split cofnig opiton addtions | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | or changes like this | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | 1 patch for the machiary aroudn it | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | and one to change the defualt | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that if we are backprotign we can backport one without the other | 12:54 |
| dviroel | btw, this patch is part of a series of patches, which are not yet merged | 12:55 |
| dviroel | we should take a look on all at some point | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh you mean not all merge don stable | 12:55 |
| amoralej | I reviewed all the ones up to this one | 12:55 |
| amoralej | in the pile | 12:55 |
| dviroel | amoralej: ack | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | if there are natureal stop point in a serise like this | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | its often prefrebal to not +w the bottom patch until we reach a natual sotping point adn are happy with a group of change | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | sometime it does make sese ot merge them 1 by 1 | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | but if 2 or 3 patches are related to the same thign its nice to merge those togheter | 12:57 |
| amoralej | yes, so the patches below this fixes som bugs by themselves so, could be merged | 12:58 |
| dviroel | not sure if they all depend on the other, but i don't think so, maybe only the zone migration ones | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | i do not mean squash, jsut hold the +w on the lower patch and loop back and add it | 12:58 |
| jgilaber | ack, time check we've only have 3 minutes remaining and a couple topics to cover | 12:58 |
| amoralej | one more question about stable | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack lets review asyc | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: sure go for it | 12:58 |
| amoralej | can i +2 a backpart that i sent for master? the backport was sent by other person | 12:59 |
| dviroel | yeah I think so | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | that a convetnion thing. in genreal its prefer if not | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we can agree our convetions as a team | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | my personal convention for +2ing or +wing a patch i wrote | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | is to just maek sure that 1 i have ask folkd to review and 2 given time | 13:00 |
| amoralej | the point is in this case, i did the original patch, jgilaber sent the backport | 13:00 |
| amoralej | if neither me or jgilaber can +2, we have more limited bandwith | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i woudl be ok with you doing it if you left it a week ro two or ask here and didnt get a repsonce after a meetingor two | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: so if jgilaber does the cherry pick | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | you can +2 | 13:01 |
| jgilaber | in this case I think you can vote amoralej since the review would be on the correctnes of backporting the change | 13:01 |
| dviroel | yeah, that was the original questin ^ | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | i fyou do the cherry pick fo your own patch then ideally someone else will do the review | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep | 13:01 |
| amoralej | yep, that was my understanding | 13:02 |
| amoralej | thanks | 13:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | idealy the person that pushes the patch and the one who reviews it shoudl eb two diffent peopel on stable, but that doe not mean you cant review it if you wrote it on master | 13:02 |
| jgilaber | ack, sorry for rushing but let's quickly cover the last topic | 13:02 |
| dviroel | jgilaber: so lets wrap up and move topics to the next meeting | 13:02 |
| jgilaber | ack let's do that | 13:03 |
| dviroel | maybe winiciusallan[m] can also join the meeting next week | 13:03 |
| jgilaber | before ending, any volunteers for next meeting? | 13:03 |
| * dviroel o/ | 13:03 | |
| jgilaber | thanks dviroel! | 13:03 |
| jgilaber | before closing, any last minute comment? | 13:03 |
| rlandy | or I can take it if dviroel needs a break | 13:04 |
| dviroel | rlandy: tks, its fine | 13:04 |
| dviroel | thanks for chairing today jgilaber++ | 13:04 |
| jgilaber | thanks all! | 13:04 |
| jgilaber | #endmeeting | 13:04 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu Apr 30 13:04:28 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 13:04 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-04-30-12.01.html | 13:04 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-04-30-12.01.txt | 13:04 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-04-30-12.01.log.html | 13:04 |
| opendevreview | David proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add comprehensive tests for action precondition validation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966860 | 13:05 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher stable/2025.1: Check if cinder is used if using the storage model https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/960717 | 13:22 |
| opendevreview | David proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add comprehensive tests for action precondition validation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/966860 | 13:58 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Remove 2024.2 jobs from the zuul gates https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/986635 | 14:09 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher master: Freeze data_model API response fields https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/986777 | 14:46 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher master: Freeze data_model API response fields https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/986777 | 14:55 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add scenario tests for boot from volume instances https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/986616 | 15:01 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/python-watcherclient master: DNM Test python-watcherclient-functional test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-watcherclient/+/986830 | 15:40 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: test: Restructure test directory with unit/ and local_fixtures/ https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978257 | 17:31 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: test: remove Selenium and integration tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978304 | 17:31 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: test: strengthen error-path tests and suppress log noise https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978303 | 17:31 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: test: fix efficacy_specifications fixture to be a list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978305 | 17:31 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: refactor: centralise Django settings access in config.py https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978301 | 17:31 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: refactor: replace/annotate reflection helpers (A2-1) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978302 | 17:31 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: feat(A5-1): add PEP 484 type annotations to api/watcher.py and errors.py https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978306 | 17:31 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add PEP 484 type annotations to api/watcher.py and errors.py https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978306 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add mypy tox target with application-grade type check settings https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978307 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: test: improve coverage to 100% on api, client, errors, exceptions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978309 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: feat: add service-layer functions to api/watcher.py https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978310 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: refactor: migrate content modules to use service layer https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978311 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: docs: document UI-layer contribution patterns https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978239 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: refactor: migrate skip-action UI to service layer https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/982674 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: docs: add AI-assisted workflow notes to HACKING.rst https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/983334 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: refactor: import aliases, audit detail MV gating, contributor docs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/983335 | 20:42 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add terse AGENTS.md and local ai/ workspace https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/983336 | 20:42 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!