09:01:54 <masahito> #startmeeting blazar
09:01:55 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Aug 15 09:01:54 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is masahito. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
09:01:56 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
09:01:58 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'blazar'
09:02:21 <masahito> #topic RollCall
09:03:13 <priteau> o/
09:03:28 <masahito> priteau: hi priteau
09:03:34 <masahito> today's agenda is
09:03:43 <masahito> 1. Pike release
09:03:47 <masahito> 2. Queens release
09:03:53 <masahito> 3. Review
09:03:57 <masahito> 4. Denver PTG
09:04:01 <masahito> 5. AOB
09:04:04 <masahito> anything else?
09:05:03 <masahito> #chair priteau
09:05:04 <openstack> Current chairs: masahito priteau
09:05:15 <priteau> Is it just the two of us this week?
09:05:22 <masahito> looks like.
09:05:33 <masahito> oh, hiro-kobayashi is out of town this week.
09:05:50 <priteau> OK
09:05:51 <masahito> this week is summer vacation season in Japan.
09:06:06 <masahito> s/season/week/
09:06:40 <masahito> #topic Pike release
09:07:18 <masahito> all BPs and the bug reports for the Pike is here.
09:07:20 <masahito> https://launchpad.net/blazar/+milestone/0.3.0
09:07:46 <masahito> I think most of the BP is already implemented.
09:07:53 <priteau> Do you think https://bugs.launchpad.net/blazar/+bug/1709103 could be considered for Pike?
09:07:53 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1709103 in Blazar "Blazar doesn't populate lease user_id" [Undecided,New]
09:08:39 <priteau> I have a fix in Chameleon but it's not very clean: https://github.com/ChameleonCloud/blazar/commit/54592e5d0d1cdc9f21de8f7bf03a42db9c359f36
09:08:42 <masahito> I didn't notice it.
09:10:17 <masahito> priteau: do you have a time to push it in one week?
09:10:30 <masahito> if nothing, we can backport it later.
09:10:47 <priteau> I think my patch is not necessarily the best solution. It should be better integrated in the context module
09:11:22 <priteau> Although we could add it as a workaround with a TODO to fix later
09:11:27 <priteau> I can do that
09:12:15 <masahito> IMO, the change for v1/service.py need to be changed.
09:12:36 <priteau> yes, but that's the only solution I have for now
09:13:11 <priteau> Would you be OK with this solution temporarily?
09:13:28 <priteau> and in this commit the change in climate/manager/service.py becomes a no-op, so I would just remove the line setting user_id
09:14:29 <masahito> got it. push the current patch with FIXME comment and Partial-bug tag.
09:14:42 <priteau> OK
09:15:13 <masahito> and add 0.4.0 milestone and backport tag to the bug report. I think it works for us.
09:15:35 <priteau> I would also like to talk about https://bugs.launchpad.net/blazar/+bug/1306231
09:15:37 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1306231 in Blazar "Climate V2 API lets a non admin user list all leases" [Medium,Won't fix] - Assigned to Pablo Andres Fuente (pablo-a-fuente)
09:16:45 <priteau> Actually, not quite that bug.
09:17:09 <priteau> Basically in Blazar there is no tenant namespace, a lease cannot be named the same by two different tenants
09:17:29 <priteau> in Chameleon we have changed the code to allow two different leases to have the same name, if they are not from the same tenant
09:18:00 <priteau> Is this something that we would like to have in Blazar?
09:18:27 <masahito> I hit similar things in my local.
09:18:55 <masahito> it could.
09:19:21 <masahito> my question is the isolation should be in user base or in tenant base.
09:20:00 <masahito> In keystone V3, user belongs to domain, not to project(tenant).
09:20:51 <priteau> uh?
09:21:01 <priteau> AFAIK users still belong to projects
09:21:10 <priteau> Domains are in addition to them
09:21:48 <priteau> https://docs.openstack.org/ocata/install-guide-obs/common/glossary.html#term-domain
09:21:56 <priteau> https://docs.openstack.org/ocata/install-guide-obs/common/glossary.html#term-project
09:22:35 <priteau> It still makes sense to separate users by projects, even if they all belong to the same domain
09:23:57 <priteau> By the way, this is the patch to allow same lease names across different projects: https://github.com/ChameleonCloud/blazar/commit/410507ea8865b6fa5780af2b6cea8a1689eccf5e
09:24:10 <masahito> one user can belong to multi project.
09:24:12 <priteau> It is missing the DB migration
09:24:32 <priteau> Yes, of course one user can belong to multiple projects. And they can create leases in each on of them.
09:25:02 <priteau> So, Alice can create a lease called "my-lease" in project A she belongs to, and another lease called "my-lease" in project B she belongs to.
09:25:17 <masahito> so in your case, one user want to have different leases with same name in different project?
09:25:19 <priteau> Well, in Chameleon she can
09:25:26 <priteau> yep
09:25:59 <priteau> In Nova you can even create instances with the same name in the same project
09:26:22 <masahito> It looks right way for naming.
09:26:58 <priteau> And it Glance too
09:27:12 <priteau> So we could even relax our rules and allow different leases with the same name in the same project
09:27:30 <masahito> it makes sense
09:27:42 <priteau> Although I tend to avoid it because it becomes confusing
09:27:43 <masahito> speaking for the bug, what do you want to do it?
09:28:05 <priteau> Actually the bug I linked to was not relevant
09:28:13 <priteau> I can create a new bug to track this issue
09:28:21 <priteau> Or search if there is an existing one
09:28:55 <masahito> the tenancy support is good as BP.
09:29:41 <masahito> b/c there is a discussion we should have it or not and schema change is required or not.
09:30:07 <priteau> OK
09:30:19 <priteau> So probably no change for Pike
09:30:24 <priteau> But for Q?
09:30:24 <masahito> yes.
09:30:34 <masahito> it's ok for me.
09:30:41 <priteau> Great
09:31:34 <masahito> IMO,  a lease belongs to a project where the token of requests is issued.
09:31:54 <masahito> s/issued/issued or scoped/
09:32:13 <priteau> Of course, there is no discussion about what project the lease belongs to
09:32:19 <priteau> It's really about rules for naming
09:32:32 <priteau> The unique identifier is the lease ID
09:33:21 <masahito> oh I see. I was misunderstood what you want.
09:33:23 <priteau> It's not a good user experience if you can't create a lease named like you want
09:33:44 <masahito> what you want is just not unique naming, right?
09:33:48 <priteau> yes
09:33:53 <priteau> nothing else changes
09:34:33 <masahito> then one project can have multi leases with same name.
09:35:41 <masahito> ok, it's not need to be BP. just be bug report targeting Q and tagged backport.
09:35:57 <priteau> OK
09:36:08 <masahito> I was confused with the tenancy problem :-)
09:36:20 <priteau> Back to Pike milestone
09:36:31 <priteau> Looks like we have all BP done/in review except for Support atomic transactions
09:36:31 <masahito> yup
09:36:37 <priteau> Should we move that to Q?
09:37:07 <masahito> yes, I'll move the atomic one.
09:37:53 <masahito> Additionally, I plan to change the status of other BP which are in revew status to implemented later
09:38:40 <masahito> if there are some tasks like 'create tempest tests', I report it as a bug report to track them.
09:38:57 <masahito> Does it make sense?
09:39:33 <priteau> Sure
09:40:00 <masahito> anything else to Pike release?
09:40:46 <masahito> #topic Queens release
09:41:11 <masahito> I created a milestone page for Q
09:41:21 <masahito> https://launchpad.net/blazar/+milestone/0.4.0
09:42:22 <masahito> if there is BPs or bugs targeting it, please add reference to it :-)
09:42:37 <masahito> that's it for Q release. anything else?
09:43:28 <priteau> I think we'll add more tasks to Q release during our September meeting
09:43:46 <masahito> right.
09:44:54 <masahito> #topic Review
09:45:35 <masahito> The rest of reviews we need to be done before P would be...
09:45:42 <masahito> 1. https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/climate-dashboard
09:45:48 <masahito> 2. https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/update-reserved-capacity
09:45:59 <masahito> 3. https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/new-instance-reservation
09:46:43 <masahito> we only need to review 8 patches.
09:46:56 <priteau> Yep, getting there
09:47:07 <priteau> I was reviewing the blazar-nova patches before the meeting
09:47:11 <masahito> oh, of course one more patch you mention before :->
09:49:18 <masahito> priteau: thanks! there're something to revise?
09:49:32 <priteau> Not yet, stil reading the code
09:49:55 <masahito> okay, I'll wait your comment :-)
09:50:39 <masahito> #topic AOB
09:51:22 <masahito> something to discuss/share?
09:52:16 <priteau> Yes
09:52:28 <priteau> There was a mailing list post about requirements updates
09:52:31 <priteau> Let me find it again
09:53:39 <priteau> I am not finding it. Anyway, the summary is that we shouldn't merge any requirement update until we've created the Pike branch
09:54:01 <priteau> The requirements project is going to reopen their master branch soon and the requirements updates coming from them will be for Q
09:54:51 <priteau> Found it
09:54:53 <priteau> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-August/120720.html
09:56:23 <masahito> okay.
09:56:41 <priteau> Actually they've reopened already
09:56:43 <priteau> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-August/121084.html
09:57:01 <priteau> "If your project does NOT have a stable/pike branch please review any bot generated changes *very* carefully until you do have a stable/pike branch."
09:57:12 <masahito> it could be hit blazar-dashboard.
09:57:37 <masahito> priteau: could you review the previous 8 patches in this week?
09:57:55 <masahito> mainly for blazar-nova repo and blazar repo.
09:58:03 <priteau> I think so. I believe I have already reviewed some of them
09:58:24 <masahito> if you can and we can merge it, I cut the branch ASAP.
09:59:00 <priteau> I will do my best
09:59:04 <masahito> we decided patches of blazar-dashboard repo will be merged if there is no big issue.
09:59:14 <masahito> me too.
10:00:05 <masahito> priteau: thanks for notifying it. I planed to cut the branch end of this month.
10:00:34 <priteau> As long as we don't merge requirements update, I think we can create the branch whenever we want
10:00:53 <priteau> But of course without merging requirements, we may start to see tests failures
10:01:58 <masahito> yes, the easy way is following the rule.
10:03:02 <masahito> meeting time is up.
10:03:19 <priteau> Thanks for the good conversation!
10:03:24 <masahito> thanks! nice meeting!
10:03:38 <masahito> bye
10:03:42 <masahito> #endmeeting