| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-specs master: Add spec for improving watcher-dashboard testing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220 | 04:39 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-specs master: Add spec for improving watcher-dashboard testing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220 | 05:00 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-specs master: Add spec for improving watcher-dashboard testing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220 | 05:37 |
| opendevreview | Victoria Martinez de la Cruz proposed openstack/grian-ui master: Add volume metrics dashboard https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/grian-ui/+/982253 | 10:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | hi folks any chance we can land the first 5-6 patches in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978256/5 | 10:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | that is the ruff adotpion and test layout changes for watcher-dashboard | 10:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej_: dviroel ^ | 10:13 |
| amoralej_ | @sean-k-mooney, in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978257/comment/cac2705c_fdfd82ad/ i understand you agreed on using /test/unit/api/ instead of /test/unit/api_tests/ ? | 10:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh your right i forgot about that | 10:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | that is more correct i can update the serise for that or add a followup patch to do that which woudl you prefer | 10:41 |
| amoralej_ | what's easier for you? | 10:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | i assume respine. if you could finish reviewing the rest of the test: patches i can respin all of them. | 10:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | its a 21 patch seriese of followups but ti woudl be more correct to fix it in that commit | 10:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | ill jsut have claude fix any merge conflcits anyway | 10:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | the top of those test: patches is the branhc point for the playwrihgt work | 10:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i want to get at lesat to that point in the next few days to unblock that once the ptg is over | 10:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | i.e. chandans playright series is based on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978305/4 | 10:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/970353/54 | 10:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | so the first 6 pathces are the minium set to unblock both seiers | 10:45 |
| amoralej_ | i'll try to review those 6 asap | 10:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | the playwright series also need the requriement change to merge beofre it cna progress i just want to make sure david and chandan can progess it when they have time too | 10:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | but thanks in advance in anycase | 10:46 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: ack, i will review them | 10:48 |
| dviroel | hi all, watcher meeting will start in 3 minutes | 11:57 |
| dviroel | add your topics to https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L35 | 11:57 |
| dviroel | #startmeeting watcher | 12:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu Apr 16 12:00:50 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 |
| dviroel | hi all, who is around today? | 12:01 |
| rlandy | o/ | 12:01 |
| jgilaber | o/ | 12:01 |
| chandankumar | o/ | 12:02 |
| morenod | o/ | 12:02 |
| dviroel | courtesy ping: amoralej sean-k-mooney | 12:02 |
| amoralej_ | o/ | 12:02 |
| dviroel | hi all, thank you all for joining | 12:02 |
| dviroel | let's start with today's meeting agenda | 12:02 |
| dviroel | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L35 (Meeting agenda) | 12:02 |
| dviroel | there isn't too much topics today in the agenda | 12:03 |
| dviroel | feel free to add your own topics if you want to discuss | 12:03 |
| dviroel | there is a topic to place your changes that requires attention from reviewers too | 12:03 |
| dviroel | let's start with | 12:03 |
| dviroel | #topic PTG | 12:04 |
| sean-k-mooney | o/ | 12:04 |
| dviroel | so ptg is next week | 12:04 |
| dviroel | and yesterday i started to build our agenda | 12:04 |
| dviroel | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/watcher-2026.2-ptg | 12:04 |
| dviroel | based on the proposed topics | 12:04 |
| dviroel | so if you still plan to cover a topic during the ptg | 12:05 |
| dviroel | that is not there in the agenda yet, please ping me, or feel free to add it to the botton of the etherpad | 12:05 |
| dviroel | we need to agree now if the slots work for us | 12:05 |
| dviroel | based on all other sessions that will happen in other rooms | 12:05 |
| dviroel | we have reserved some slots for Wed, Thu and Fri | 12:06 |
| dviroel | #link https://ptg.opendev.org/ptg.html | 12:06 |
| dviroel | from 13:00 UTC to 17:00 UTC | 12:06 |
| dviroel | the agenda is not using the last hour of the day | 12:08 |
| dviroel | for Wed and Thu | 12:08 |
| dviroel | which gives the opportunity to finish earlier those days, or to schedule additional topics if needed | 12:08 |
| dviroel | i would ask you to look if the time schedule given for yout topic is enough | 12:09 |
| dviroel | and works for you | 12:09 |
| amoralej_ | i have one doubt about one of the topics | 12:09 |
| dviroel | sure | 12:10 |
| amoralej_ | about "Filters for Watcher Strategies" | 12:10 |
| amoralej_ | some time ago we discussed about using filters and weighters but in a different scope that the one mentioned in the etherpad | 12:11 |
| amoralej_ | related to prioritize / order actions in an actionplan | 12:11 |
| amoralej_ | not prioritize destination computes in a migration | 12:11 |
| amoralej_ | so i guess that should be another topic? | 12:11 |
| dviroel | i created this topic based on the original proposal wrt CDM new attributes, so the idea is to filters invalid destination when selecting a destination node for a migration | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | those are diffent thigns yes | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think we likely need both | 12:13 |
| amoralej_ | so i can add it on friday after last one? | 12:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | we need a way to optimise the execution odeer of thing like live meigrtion | 12:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | and seperately we need a way to optimise the selection fo the destination | 12:13 |
| amoralej_ | exactly | 12:13 |
| dviroel | amoralej_: sure, we can have a different topic to cover that | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | so idealy elimiaton of invlaid destionation shoudl not need to be done by each stargey | 12:14 |
| amoralej_ | i think each one deserves its slot | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | that could be common the stragey is more a "weigher" in the nova sense of form these valid host which one shoudl i pick | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | after we have decied where evething shoudl go | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | we then have the action plan optimisation pahse | 12:15 |
| sean-k-mooney | were we woudl wnat to decied the orderign of the opertion in the plan so that we cna have more effeicelty execute it | 12:15 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: that's what i was expecting to discuss yes | 12:15 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack | 12:15 |
| sean-k-mooney | we shoudl dicuss both and probley in that order | 12:16 |
| sean-k-mooney | i dont really have a stong opion on 1 vs 2 sesssion however | 12:16 |
| dviroel | we could discuss them one after another yes | 12:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | its currntly the last slot on the day as well | 12:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | so if we need to spill into the final hour we can descied if we want too or revisit later inthe week | 12:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | we have some time on friday free | 12:18 |
| dviroel | yes, we still have some time on friday, we can keep it on friday for now I think | 12:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | i will say we proably can shorten the retro but we dont need to do that now if we finsih in lest then 45 mins we can just move forward | 12:18 |
| dviroel | yep | 12:19 |
| dviroel | ok, so feel free to propose changes to the agenda at any time (all) | 12:20 |
| dviroel | i will update the ptg bot to properly point to this etherpad | 12:21 |
| dviroel | any other comments about our ptg agenda? or any specific topics? | 12:21 |
| amoralej_ | i'll add content to the scalability topis by today | 12:22 |
| dviroel | amoralej_: thanks | 12:22 |
| dviroel | amoralej_: if you have lot to cover there, we may extend the topic duration too | 12:23 |
| amoralej_ | no, i think it will be fine | 12:23 |
| dviroel | ack, apart from that, we have also the eventlet session happening on tuesday | 12:24 |
| dviroel | which doesn't conflict with our agenda | 12:24 |
| dviroel | i will be sending an email about our next week meeting, that is going to be cancelled due to ptg | 12:25 |
| dviroel | anything else? | 12:25 |
| dviroel | next topic | 12:26 |
| dviroel | #topic selenium vs playwright comparision link or tables | 12:26 |
| dviroel | chandank` around? | 12:26 |
| chandank` | yes, thank you dviroel | 12:26 |
| chandank` | I need help here on this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220 to whether we can put selenium vs playwright comparison link or table on the spec to outline why playwright decision is made | 12:27 |
| chandank` | On current spec, I have removed reference of poc and comparison | 12:27 |
| chandank` | I have added a single line explaning what playwright provides. | 12:28 |
| chandank` | Since everyone is here what do you think about to keeping the link or comparison table there on the spec? | 12:28 |
| amoralej_ | I think we should document our decision reasons somewhere. If not in the spec, somewhere else, but should be documented, imo | 12:28 |
| amoralej_ | the spec would be fine to me, but i saw most of the team didn't want it there | 12:29 |
| chandank` | If not spec, then Does it make sense to keep it in the playwright doc getting added with the playwright review? | 12:30 |
| amoralej_ | that'd also work i guess | 12:30 |
| jgilaber | I originally objected to having the table in the Reference section, but adding it somewhere else and linking it in the spec is a good idea I think | 12:30 |
| chandank` | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/970353/54/doc/source/contributor/playwright-testing.rst | 12:30 |
| jgilaber | I'd be ok with adding a section in that doc for the table | 12:31 |
| dviroel | I also think that spec would be fine to document about the decision, with a brief comparison | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | chandank`: so i dont really want that to exist in the spec | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | i woudl prefer to jsut document the outcome of the poc (selecting playwright) and just breifly mention selenium as the rejected alternitive | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | that why i asked for all the historcial context to be removed and just focus on the path forwardc | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | i woudl prefer not to to have it in the playwright doc either for what its worht | 12:34 |
| chandank` | I have already added selenium under alternative https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220/17/specs/2026.2/approved/improve-watcher-dashboard-ui-testing.rst at Line 128 | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | and i dont think we need more then that | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | eitehr in the spec or repo docs | 12:35 |
| chandank` | Is it ok to add a link with selenium alternative in case anyone wants to dig into the comparison table? | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | the discusion lives in gerrit but what we commit shoudl be the final outcome | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | chandank`: i would prefer not to but if other want that its ok | 12:36 |
| amoralej_ | in which gerrit review? | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | the poc ones | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | the point is i dont think we shoudl have refences to toosl/frameworsk we rejected long term in any great detail | 12:37 |
| amoralej_ | i think most of the dicussion was on irc, and not even in meetings that we can clear point to, and imo, it's good to provide the selection reasons easy to check for a decision like this which is introducing a new testing framework in openstack | 12:38 |
| amoralej_ | said that, i'm also not blocking because of this | 12:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | if its short , 10-20 lines then maybe | 12:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | but definetly not in the final watcher-dashbaord repo | 12:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | i would put it the rejection reason in the alternitive section | 12:40 |
| chandank` | I will try to summarize it in 10-20 lines and update the spec, we can take it from there or if that does not fit, we can just add a link to alternative | 12:40 |
| chandank` | all modification in alternative section | 12:40 |
| dviroel | works for me, and don't need to be too long in the end in my opinion | 12:41 |
| chandank` | that's it from my side on this topic, thank you dviroel amoralej_ sean-k-mooney! | 12:41 |
| dviroel | ack, thanks chandank` | 12:42 |
| dviroel | #topic Reviews | 12:42 |
| dviroel | other specs that are proposed for this cycle | 12:43 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/watcher-specs+status:open | 12:43 |
| dviroel | we may have new ones after the ptg, depending on the discussions | 12:43 |
| dviroel | i added a topic to cover audit pipeline at the ptg | 12:44 |
| dviroel | jgilaber spec looks good too | 12:44 |
| dviroel | need to revisit only | 12:44 |
| dviroel | i added a link to ruff adoption patch in dashboard | 12:45 |
| dviroel | which sean-k-mooney was requesting review earlier, i will take a look after the meeting | 12:45 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978256 | 12:45 |
| amoralej_ | wrt https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/978897 i didn't want to merge it yet although it has 2x+2 | 12:45 |
| amoralej_ | but i'd say it's good to go, it's just i don't have much experience with reviewing specs | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: so the same ruff settign should effectivly be adopted in all our repos i dont recall if i pushed patches for the client and or tepmest plugin | 12:47 |
| * dviroel forgot that I already voted in this one | 12:47 | |
| * dviroel the joan's spec | 12:47 | |
| sean-k-mooney | but ya we shoudl try and get those changes in in the next few days if we can | 12:48 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: ack agree, there is a lot of other patches waiting for them too right | 12:48 |
| dviroel | so we can continue with playwright chances | 12:48 |
| dviroel | amoralej_: it already has enough votes, and follow ups can be provided if needed too | 12:49 |
| dviroel | amoralej_: so feel free to W+1 if nobody disagree | 12:49 |
| amoralej_ | ack | 12:49 |
| dviroel | folks, any other reviews that need attention? | 12:49 |
| dviroel | #topic Bugs | 12:51 |
| dviroel | it seems that there is no new bugs reported | 12:51 |
| dviroel | i propose for us to revisit the ones that have higher priorities, starting next week | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | that always nice | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | well the week after right since we shoudl cnace this next week | 12:52 |
| dviroel | correct | 12:52 |
| dviroel | the Apr 30th meeting :) | 12:53 |
| dviroel | ah, make sure to assign a bug to you, in case you started working on it | 12:53 |
| * dviroel needs to do that in a bug | 12:54 | |
| dviroel | ok, next topic then | 12:54 |
| dviroel | #topic volunteers to chair next meeting (the Apr 30th) | 12:54 |
| dviroel | someone would like to chair? | 12:54 |
| dviroel | i will be around to chair if needed | 12:55 |
| jgilaber | I can do it | 12:55 |
| dviroel | jgilaber: nice, thanks jgilaber | 12:55 |
| dviroel | #topic Open Discussions | 12:55 |
| dviroel | anything that you folks want to highlight in the last 5 min? | 12:56 |
| dviroel | alright then | 12:57 |
| dviroel | let's wrap up for today | 12:57 |
| dviroel | we will meet again next week, during the ptg sessions | 12:57 |
| dviroel | thank you all for participating | 12:57 |
| dviroel | #endmeeting | 12:57 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu Apr 16 12:57:26 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 12:57 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-04-16-12.00.html | 12:57 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-04-16-12.00.txt | 12:57 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2026/watcher.2026-04-16-12.00.log.html | 12:57 |
| amoralej_ | thanks dviroel for chairing! | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: this is proably for next ptg but once we complet the mvoe to the sdk we also need to add sdk supprot for watcher so watcher-dashbaord can also move to using the sdk to talk to watcher | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: its sperate form your sdk topic but related | 12:58 |
| jgilaber | sean-k-mooney, yes I mentioned in the current spec but I commented that likely I won't have time to do it in this cycle | 13:00 |
| jgilaber | as you noted I'll probably get to that in 2027.1 | 13:00 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher-dashboard master: ruff: Add isort config and fix per-file-ignores https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978256 | 14:09 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher-specs master: Add 2026.2 OpenStackSDK migration spec for remaining services https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/978897 | 14:28 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher-dashboard master: style: replace autopep8 with ruff-format; restrict hacking to H-rules https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/978258 | 15:01 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!