20:00:02 <redrobot> #startmeeting barbican 20:00:03 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Aug 4 20:00:02 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is redrobot. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:00:04 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:00:06 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'barbican' 20:00:30 <redrobot> As usual the meeting agenda can be found here: 20:00:32 <redrobot> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Barbican 20:00:37 <redrobot> #topic Roll Call 20:00:43 <jvrbanac> _o/ 20:00:45 <reaperhulk> o/ 20:00:45 <hockeynut> o/ 20:00:49 <SheenaG1> o/ 20:00:52 <tsv> o/ 20:00:52 <chellygel> \o/ 20:00:53 <rellerreller> o/ 20:00:56 <alee> o/ 20:00:57 <sicarie> o/ 20:00:59 <kaitlin-farr_> o/ 20:01:01 <paul_glass> o/ 20:01:26 <woodster_> o/ 20:01:31 <lisaclark1> o/ 20:01:36 <woodster_> \o 20:01:50 <redrobot> woohoo! lots of barbicaneers here today 20:02:06 <redrobot> ok, let's get this started 20:02:15 <redrobot> #topic #openstack-barbican in eavesdrop 20:02:35 <redrobot> ok, so I added this to the agenda 20:02:50 <redrobot> just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that #openstack-barbican is now being logged by infra 20:02:53 <redrobot> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-barbican/ 20:03:17 <redrobot> it should hopefully make it easier to keep track of conversations if you're not idling on the channel all the time 20:04:05 <redrobot> any questions/comments? 20:04:37 <rellerreller> How long are the logs around before they are deleted? 20:04:50 <redrobot> rellerreller good question! I don't know the answer to that 20:05:23 <woodster> just watch what you say now folks :) 20:05:33 <redrobot> lgos on some channels go back futher than a year... so quite some time apparently 20:06:01 <redrobot> yes... now people will have proof that reaperhulk is a jerk. :-P 20:06:28 <kaitlin-farr_> whoaa openstack-meeting goes back to 2010 20:06:52 <woodster> do an expletives search... 20:07:39 <redrobot> kaitlin-farr_ wow... isn't that older than openstack itself?! 20:08:11 <redrobot> well... that's about all I have on the agenda for today... I'll open up the floor for any topics you guys feel we need to talk about 20:08:37 <hockeynut> a search for expletives should give http 413 :-) 20:09:38 <SheenaG1> Unrelated to expletives - rellerreller and kaitlin-farr_ - are you guys still working on integrating Barbican into the encryption work you had done? I apologize if this is old news, I've been out of the loop for a while. 20:10:09 <rellerreller> Yes, we are still working on that 20:10:13 <kaitlin-farr_> SheenaG1, yup! 20:10:36 <woodster> rellerreller: is that planned for Juno? 20:10:38 <rellerreller> It's not totally unrelated. There are some expletives dropped while doing the dev 20:10:55 <SheenaG1> Ha! 20:10:58 <rellerreller> We would like to have this done in Juno. I don't know if it will happen. 20:10:59 <SheenaG1> I believe that. 20:11:21 <rellerreller> We are working on integrating Barbican into Nova. Getting anything into Nova is quite difficult. 20:11:21 <woodster> rellerreller: the infra plugin also records conversations, so yes, we know 20:12:21 <SheenaG1> Fair enough - I was just curious since we hadn't kicked the thread in a bit. :-) 20:12:21 <redrobot> #topic JPL update 20:12:25 <woodster> rellerreller, kaitlin-farr: are you guys planning to have KMIP ready in juno? 20:12:29 <rellerreller> We had someone out at the Nova mid-cycle meetup. There is some resistance to integrate a Barbican key manager until Barbican is fully integrated. 20:12:38 <bubbva> sorry, I'm here, just was reading email. o/ 20:12:42 <redrobot> #agreed It is quite difficult to merge patches into nova 20:13:02 <rellerreller> Topic change to APL not JPL. JPL is a competitor. 20:13:15 <SheenaG1> We're working on it... redrobot has promised to deliver unto us the integration requirements from the TC 20:13:18 <redrobot> #topic APL Update 20:13:37 <rellerreller> Thanks, redrobot :) 20:13:46 * redrobot nods 20:13:50 <jaosorior> What's barbican missing to get integrated? 20:14:24 <redrobot> jaosorior I think it's a requirement to be incubated for a full cycle before asking for integration 20:14:46 <redrobot> last I heard jraim__ was going to ask the TC about integrating in the K release 20:15:04 <redrobot> we also want to have a stable api 20:15:17 <SheenaG1> I believe that's still the plan, although we'll have to start working with them well in advance to land it 20:15:23 <redrobot> so we definitely want to land breaking changes like Arvind's refactor of orders 20:15:23 <SheenaG1> them == TC 20:15:50 <redrobot> also removing the Tenant ID from the URL needs to land 20:15:59 <redrobot> and we really should stabilize the client 20:16:08 <tsv> redrobot, o/ 20:16:18 <redrobot> tsv yes? 20:16:22 <tsv> for the tenant-id removal work, i reviewed the associated client changes required. it is minimal and I have locally updated few tests for it. shall i go ahead and submit the code for review ? 20:16:42 <redrobot> tsv for the client? yes, that would be awesome 20:17:14 <tsv> redrobot, sure, will do. thanks. is there a CR already open ? if not i will create one 20:18:12 <redrobot> tsv I don't think anyone has done any work in the client related to the tenant-id removal. You should be able to open a new CR for that. 20:18:25 <tsv> thanks. will do 20:18:31 <atiwari> tsv, is it for client change due to tenant-id removal ? 20:18:42 <tsv> atiwari, yes 20:18:47 <atiwari> great 20:19:18 <redrobot> rm_work wanna talk about that comment? 20:19:40 <redrobot> #topic Argument pass-through using **kwargs 20:19:42 <rm_work> err, not sure if that's really a topic for this meeting, but 20:19:52 <rm_work> I'll definitely plug my review :P 20:19:58 <rm_work> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107845/ 20:20:04 <redrobot> well we ran out of agenda items, and it would be good to talk about since we have everyone here 20:20:08 <rm_work> heh 20:20:38 <rm_work> Arvind's suggestion was to pass the repo's through as kwargs instead of explicitly, if they are needed in a sub-resource but not in that resource specifically 20:20:40 <redrobot> rm_work it's much easier than having you chase everyone down for the next couple of days ;) 20:20:49 <rm_work> (see containers.py passing consumerRepo through to consumers.py) 20:21:06 <rm_work> it's only needed for the Mocks in the unit tests 20:21:22 <rm_work> but since Consumers it is a sub-resource of Containers, I need to pass the resource through 20:21:29 <rm_work> can this be done via kwargs? 20:21:47 <rm_work> I don't think so? since kwargs would come in to the _init_ and they aren't USED until the index function 20:21:58 <rm_work> or the on_get (depending on if we've updated to that method) 20:22:19 <rm_work> so I'd have to likeā¦ store the kwargs and pass them back through later, and it looks really ugly 20:22:37 <redrobot> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107845/16/barbican/api/controllers/containers.py 20:22:43 <redrobot> line 38 20:23:30 <rm_work> although to be fair I think possible secret_repo isn't needed in that first one, but I need to double-check 20:23:40 <rm_work> that's kind of beside the point tho 20:24:32 <alee> redrobot, rm_work, woodster - I thought that there was a plan to replace these repo arguments with factory methods to get the repos as needed. 20:25:09 <woodster> alee: that's correct 20:25:21 <woodster> hopefully will do so in the next week or so 20:25:44 <alee> rm_work, redrobot then this issue about kwargs etc. will go away very soon. 20:25:53 <woodster> ...and then get rid of that context object passed into the secret_store methods 20:26:15 <rm_work> ok 20:26:24 <rm_work> so, could we move forward with my change then? :) 20:26:30 <rm_work> +2s all around? :P 20:26:37 <redrobot> yeah... seems it would be easier to leave this CR as is and then address the repos later when we refactor with factory methods 20:26:40 <rm_work> and it can be fixed as part of that refactor? 20:26:59 <redrobot> atiwari does that sounds like a reasonable plan? 20:27:03 <jaosorior> I dig the factory idea 20:27:18 <atiwari> rm_work, please add a code improvement bug and add in the code 20:27:26 <atiwari> for place holder 20:27:39 <rm_work> T_T 20:27:46 <atiwari> redrobot, what do you say? 20:27:51 <rm_work> atiwari: if I have to "recheck no bug" this another 8 times I will cry 20:28:10 <rm_work> speaking of, did that make it onto the agenda? 20:28:14 <rm_work> I may have missed it 20:28:36 <atiwari> rm_work, just add come comment IMO 20:28:40 <redrobot> rm_work nope, only thing on the agenda was the barbican channel being logged in eavesdrop 20:28:44 <rm_work> ok 20:28:57 <rm_work> I would like to mention that the dsvm tests are really broken 20:29:12 <redrobot> k, we'll talk about that next 20:29:15 <rm_work> they are failing for no discernible reason 20:29:36 <rm_work> i think chellygel was seeing it too? 20:29:52 <redrobot> #action rm_work to add TODO to consumer registration CR for repo-factory-refactor 20:29:55 <rm_work> though I see it much more often because the issue is with the tempest tests and my change has more than double the amount of tests in Master :P 20:30:11 <chellygel> anyone running stuff through zuul on friday would've dealt with it rm_work 20:30:20 <rm_work> chellygel: so is it fixed now:? 20:30:50 <rm_work> i haven't run more checks since 20:30:56 <rm_work> anyway, I will do that 20:31:04 <rm_work> thanks, have to run to another meeting :( 20:31:04 <chellygel> yeah from what i can see, jvrbanac made some changes to tox and its bueno now 20:31:04 <redrobot> #topic dsvm tests are too fragile 20:31:18 <rm_work> chellygel: err, I was seeing the issue well after that 20:31:25 <reaperhulk> the fixes jvrbanac did were to fix a separate testr issue 20:31:30 <rm_work> I think it is something wrong with the build process 20:31:32 <rm_work> for the VM 20:31:35 <rm_work> not sure though 20:31:41 <hockeynut> that seems to be happening more and more often 20:31:52 <rm_work> all I know is that random tempest tests are getting failures that look more network related than test related 20:32:04 <rm_work> and really sorry, but I do have a meeting right now, bad scheduling T_T 20:32:35 <redrobot> rm_work k, noted the dsvm failures... not sure if we can do anything about them 20:32:37 <reaperhulk> unfortunately those problems are likely to be issues with the performance of the host underlying the VM and tempest itself 20:32:38 <rm_work> :( 20:33:04 <redrobot> #agreed recheck no bug x8 is not fun 20:34:19 <redrobot> ok, so I guess we can move on to another topic if anyone else has something to talk about 20:34:24 <redrobot> if not we can call it an early meeting 20:34:31 <atiwari> redrobot, woodster I have broken my cr for order type in to two #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111412/. can we start review? :) 20:34:57 <atiwari> this is one based on woodster comments 20:35:03 <redrobot> +463 looks much better than +980 20:35:19 <redrobot> atiwari thanks for splitting that up 20:35:41 <atiwari> ok, if we can make some progress that wd be great :) 20:36:09 <redrobot> atiwari we're all heads down on some work here at the rack, so we may not be able to get you reviewed until tomorrow 20:36:25 <atiwari> tomorrow if OK 20:36:29 <redrobot> we definitely want to merge the order types soon 20:36:48 <woodster> atiwari: thanks for you work there btw! 20:36:58 <atiwari> redrobot, woodster np 20:37:28 <jaosorior> Well, if people have time these days to review the moving of the client to cliff it would be cool https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107587/ might even help for integration 20:37:41 <redrobot> ok guys, sounds like we don't really have anything else to talk about, except getting code reviewed 20:38:13 <redrobot> so let's call it a meeting and go review some code! 20:38:14 <redrobot> :D 20:39:40 <redrobot> thanks everyone for coming 20:39:47 <redrobot> #endmeeting