16:01:49 <scottda> #startmeeting cinder_testing
16:01:50 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jan 17 16:01:49 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is scottda. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:51 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:01:54 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder_testing'
16:02:04 <erlon> hey
16:02:10 <scottda> ping eharney, xyang1, gouthamr, akerr, smcginnis, cFouts, e0ne, geguileo, dulek, flip214, ntpttr patrickeast, _alastor_, DuncanT, erlon, josemello,mdarnell, karthikp
16:02:22 <e0ne> hi
16:02:31 <scottda> hi erlon . Now that you are hear, we know we'll have something to talk about :)
16:02:34 <xyang> hi
16:02:48 <scottda> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-ocata-testing
16:02:58 <scottda> I pointed this out last week ^^^
16:03:03 <erlon> scottda: haha,
16:03:20 <scottda> Some tracking so that we can make sure things get *some* coverage before the release
16:03:35 <erlon> scottda: nothing much new, Im returning this week from my pto
16:03:51 <scottda> But I don't see much action on that...I'm going to put that link on the main Cinder meeting agenda
16:04:15 <erlon> scottda: I notice that etherpad is very empty, may be folks should update it with details
16:04:29 <scottda> yup
16:05:25 <erlon> scottda: I added some bullets but still need to track the migration related bugs and try to sort then out
16:06:43 <scottda> OK, I added a reminder in the main Cinder agenda
16:07:04 <erlon> scottda: nice
16:07:36 <scottda> I also have added something to the PTG etherpad regarding a single Testing priority for Pike release...
16:07:52 <erlon> scottda: people should really give some attention to testing. The AA patches are landing and they touch a lot of code
16:08:13 <hemna> what's up
16:08:28 <scottda> I think if we don't have a single focus, we'll end up with the usual list of everything wrong we'd like to fix.
16:08:56 <scottda> hemna: Hi.
16:09:15 <scottda> Anyone have anything about tests they'd like to talk about?
16:09:29 <erlon> scottda: whast do you mean by single focus?
16:10:08 <scottda> erlon: Well, if we come up with the 10 areas we need to write tempest/functional tests for, none of them will get done....
16:10:22 <scottda> erlon: If we pick one, there is hope that we can focus and perhaps make progress.
16:10:30 <scottda> Then, we could add more if there is time.
16:10:32 <geguileo> erlon: I have a fix for the manage issue
16:10:37 <scottda> smcginnis: had suggested this, and I agree.
16:10:46 <geguileo> erlon: I'm going to look into the retype with migration now
16:11:06 <erlon> scottda: hmm, I see
16:11:09 <scottda> But, of course, people can work on whatever they want (or whatever their employer lets them do)
16:11:22 <openstackgerrit> Merged openstack/os-brick: Fix a wrong indentation  https://review.openstack.org/421137
16:11:23 <erlon> geguileo: I remember I have some patches but didnt submit
16:11:43 <erlon> geguileo: ill put a patch and you can give a look if theres something missing
16:11:51 <scottda> geguileo: I had left some work undone on retype with migration...we hope we can end up calling Nova swap volume, to test that as well.
16:11:57 <geguileo> erlon: lol, then our patches will be fighting one another
16:12:28 <erlon> geguileo: haha
16:12:48 <scottda> geguileo: erlon I think that using LVM will cause a Nova swap_volume if the hostname for both backends is different. Otherwise, it won't call swap_volume.
16:13:52 <geguileo> scottda: I have just fixed the manage one, I have to look at the other case, as it may be related
16:14:30 <erlon> scottda: I dont reacall now, but I believe swap_volume is always being called for the attached migration
16:14:40 <scottda> OK, cool. I think there is a local nova test for swap_volume, but nothing that exercises it from Cinder...
16:15:07 <scottda> and therefore not testing of anything that has Cinder call Nova, and using the novaclient, etc.
16:15:11 <markus_z> scottda: Would you maybe have a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/413684/ ? Needs a 2nd +2.
16:15:27 <scottda> erlon: No, I don't think it will with a single-node LVM setup, since the hostname is the smae for both backends.
16:15:31 <scottda> s/smae/same
16:16:29 <scottda> erlon: I thought I had a patch that worked, but there is some logic to optimize things for the case of 2 backends on the same host...I'll try to find it...
16:16:39 <scottda> markus_z: I'll put it in my queue to have a look
16:16:55 <markus_z> scottda: Thanks, that's all I can ask for :)
16:18:55 <openstackgerrit> Erlon R. Cruz proposed openstack/cinder: Fix sched/manager calls to filters  https://review.openstack.org/421348
16:19:19 <erlon> geguileo: ^ first :)
16:19:35 <scottda> #link https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/manager.py#L2293
16:19:39 <geguileo> erlon: lol, I still have to add the tests
16:19:49 <geguileo> erlon: And see if it helps with the other bug
16:19:54 <scottda> erlon: That is it, I think
16:21:03 <erlon> scottda: yep, theres this case, I found it because I was testing migration between pools in the same backend
16:21:30 <scottda> erlon: So, does your test patch get around this? If not, we'll go with geguileo
16:21:31 <scottda> :)
16:21:32 <erlon> scottda: which is the must be the same behavior you mentioned in LVM
16:21:40 <erlon> scottda: yes
16:22:08 <erlon> scottda: ow wait
16:22:58 <scottda> erlon: I think we really need to check the Nova logs to verify. Otherwise, we'll need an additional test. And this already takes a bit of time to run.
16:23:10 <geguileo> erlon: your patch is incomplete
16:23:11 <openstackgerrit> Erlon R. Cruz proposed openstack/cinder: Fix retype with migration false positive success  https://review.openstack.org/421353
16:23:32 <erlon> geguileo: yeap, that another error
16:23:41 <erlon> I split in those 2
16:23:52 <scottda> erlon: You don't get to be first to post a patch if it's not complete :)
16:24:08 <erlon> geguileo: scottda: the last one is handling the hostname
16:24:18 <erlon> scottda: haha damn
16:25:31 <erlon> scottda: geguileo: they where hanging here, fell free to -2 if you have another that fix
16:26:06 <geguileo> erlon: I'll look now at reproducing the second issue and do the RCA
16:27:49 <erlon> geguileo: ok, leme know if you have problem to reproduce it
16:27:56 <openstackgerrit> int32bit proposed openstack/python-cinderclient: Add snapshot-id filter to get volumes via cli  https://review.openstack.org/416510
16:27:57 <geguileo> erlon: why do we need to say that None is not equal to None for host equivalency?
16:29:52 <erlon> geguileo: I don't think we need to. Actually they should not be considered equal
16:30:35 <erlon> geguileo: if clustering is not configured, both are None, but the hosts are actually different
16:30:36 <geguileo> erlon: Why should they not be considered equal?
16:31:12 <geguileo> erlon: but that should be ok
16:31:22 <geguileo> erlon: clusters are equal but not the hosts
16:31:37 <erlon> the false positive happens here:https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/manager.py#L2295
16:33:00 <erlon> geguileo: yeah but if does not have cluster_name set, it will lead to a false positive as will compair None == None
16:33:39 <geguileo> erlon: I'll check it, because then the problem is somewhere else, not in that method
16:35:05 <erlon> geguileo: I was trying to understand if the cluster_name that should always have the right values or if the comparation should consider that they could be None, but didn't get to a conclusion, that's why I pinged you the last time
16:37:37 <scottda> Ok, well you two can battle it out for which patch we go with....
16:37:51 <scottda> But please check the Nova swap_volume call.
16:38:11 <scottda> Anything else about tests today?
16:39:22 <erlon> scottda: hmm, I found some tests in tempest that worth to look on
16:39:37 <erlon> scottda: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/tempest+(message:volume+OR+message:cinder)+status:open+-status:merged
16:40:06 <erlon> scottda: it seems a lot of people now and in the past have worked in some testing and just left the work
16:40:30 <erlon> scottda: so, some of the might be interesting to re-pick
16:40:41 <scottda> erlon: Yes. Thanks for cleaning all of those up.
16:40:42 <scottda> :)
16:41:24 <erlon> scottda: haha, welcome, in advance :)
16:41:35 <erlon> scottda: ill have a look
16:41:59 <scottda> I'm kidding, of course. But let me know if you are re-activating work on any, and I'll review.
16:42:53 * scottda notes his patch is at the top of the list
16:43:00 <erlon> scottda: ill have a look in the list and ping you about the best ones we and do what we can afford to
16:43:13 <erlon> scottda: welcome again :)
16:43:52 <openstackgerrit> int32bit proposed openstack/python-cinderclient: Add snapshot-id filter to get volumes via cli  https://review.openstack.org/416510
16:44:36 <erlon> scottda: another point I was wondering weather we should pick some of that and move to our intree tests
16:45:24 <scottda> erlon: That could be a good idea (moving in-tree), as that may be why some languished in the review queue.
16:46:03 <smcginnis> +1
16:46:49 <erlon> scottda: mhm, the bad side is that we loose the eyes of tempest core, but that's is hard to get anyways
16:47:23 <scottda> Yes, the "hard to get" part is what I'm talking about
16:47:39 <smcginnis> erlon: I'm sure if we merge something especially bad, we'll get their attention. ;)
16:47:40 <erlon> scottda: yeap
16:47:54 <smcginnis> scottda: Right, it's lack of attention I think that has prevented us from adding some of these tests.
16:47:59 <erlon> smcginnis: haha, yeah
16:47:59 <scottda> Or it they merge something especially bad...
16:48:07 <smcginnis> scottda: ;)
16:48:36 <scottda> OK, well thanks erlon . Keep us informed as to what you identify (if still in Tempest).
16:48:51 <scottda> I reckon we'll pay attention no matter what if you move them to cinder in-tree
16:49:50 <scottda> OK, anything else?
16:50:16 <xyang> so regarding tempest tests for groups, should I submit them in-tree or in tempest?
16:51:10 <scottda> xyang: Good question.
16:51:12 <smcginnis> xyang: Hmm, maybe try in tempest, and if there is resistance there move to in-tree?
16:51:18 <xyang> sure
16:51:23 <scottda> +1
16:51:43 <erlon> scottda: sure, welcome
16:52:05 <smcginnis> We've talked about using our in-tree as kind of an incubator for tempest tests, but I think that one might be good to just go there.
16:52:19 <scottda> yup
16:52:43 <xyang> @smcginnis: this one works for LVM, so should be okay I hope
16:52:49 <erlon> xyang: if you are getting good feedback, and they are ready to get merged Id recommend to leave there, otherewise move then to in-tree
16:53:03 <xyang> erlon: ok
16:55:02 <scottda> OK, if there's anything else, chime in. Otherwise, thanks everyone
16:55:17 <smcginnis> Nothing here. Thanks scottda.
16:55:44 <scottda> #endmeeting