14:01:00 <rafaelweingartne> #startmeeting cloudkitty
14:01:00 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Mar  8 14:01:00 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is rafaelweingartne. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:01 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:03 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'cloudkitty'
14:01:41 <rafaelweingartne> Roll count
14:01:52 <priteau> o/
14:02:27 <mkarpiarz> Hi!
14:02:30 <jopdorp_> o/
14:04:14 <rafaelweingartne> #topic Review priorities
14:04:21 <rafaelweingartne> Do you guys have some review priorities to ask for?
14:04:33 <jopdorp_> none for me
14:05:17 <mkarpiarz> Just FYI that I'm testing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/778922
14:05:21 <rafaelweingartne> I create a new patch to allow the admin to use multiple filters of the same type ('project_id') in the summary GET API. It would be interesting to get some opinions there.
14:05:41 <rafaelweingartne> mkarpiarz: Thanks!
14:06:29 <mkarpiarz> Sure thing.
14:08:24 <mkarpiarz> Anything else worth looking into?
14:09:13 <rafaelweingartne> Not from my side
14:09:29 <rafaelweingartne> maybe we have a release coming, but I need to take a look into the process
14:09:48 <rafaelweingartne> pierre: have you ever closed a Cloudkitty release before?
14:10:18 <priteau> Yes, it's easy
14:10:30 <priteau> Just need to tag an RC1 of the various components
14:10:49 <rafaelweingartne> I see
14:10:59 <rafaelweingartne> do we get a ping to execute this process?
14:11:30 <priteau> I think so, the release management team will propose something
14:11:33 <priteau> https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/release-management.html
14:11:46 <rafaelweingartne> Ok, thanks
14:11:48 <priteau> But I will monitor once we are near
14:12:33 <rafaelweingartne> ok, thanks for the help
14:13:55 <rafaelweingartne> So, moving on
14:14:02 <rafaelweingartne> #topic AOB
14:14:09 <rafaelweingartne> Now, I open for general questions and topics that people might have.
14:14:50 <mkarpiarz> Nothing from my side.
14:15:06 <priteau> This week is feature freeze so we should wrap up patches
14:15:14 <priteau> (although our PTL can grant exceptions)
14:15:50 <priteau> Which patches do we think are in a good state for Wallaby?
14:16:22 <priteau> mkarpiarz: Is NOTNUMBOOL still WIP?
14:17:26 <mkarpiarz> Yeah, I need to add docs.
14:18:29 <rafaelweingartne> this one seems to be ready as well: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/774520
14:19:50 <rafaelweingartne> priteau: I did not understand your comment in: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/774634
14:20:03 <rafaelweingartne> could you clarify it?
14:20:18 <priteau> Well, it's my fault. You originally suggested something like last_processed_timestamp
14:20:41 <priteau> And I asked to change it to last_processed_at to make it similar to timestamps in other OpenStack DBs
14:21:15 <priteau> But it's a different meaning: it doesn't really track when the last period was processed, but which one
14:22:03 <priteau> i.e. if you stop cloudkitty and restart it several hours later, this value will be set to times from the past (until it progressively syncs with present)
14:22:49 <priteau> Do you see what I mean?
14:24:00 <rafaelweingartne> yes, I see
14:24:08 <rafaelweingartne> and yes, that is what happens
14:24:19 <rafaelweingartne> I do not see the problem with this name though
14:25:26 <priteau> Well, last_processed_at could make you think that it is the time the period is actually processed
14:25:38 <priteau> Maybe just call it "last_processed"?
14:26:15 <rafaelweingartne> Hmm, I see
14:26:31 <rafaelweingartne> I would like to see an "at" or "timestamp" wording
14:26:50 <rafaelweingartne> otherwise, just reading, we do not know what the type of the field is
14:27:50 <rafaelweingartne> What do others think?
14:27:54 <priteau> So last_processed_timestamp or last_processed_time?
14:27:59 <priteau> Like you originally suggested
14:28:13 <rafaelweingartne> mkarpiarz?
14:29:08 <mkarpiarz> Not sure about this one.
14:29:22 <rafaelweingartne> priteau: if we decide to change? What do we do? I mean, we create a new spec to amend the one that has been merged?
14:30:02 <priteau> It's not a formal process. If we all agree on the code review, we can change the spec later.
14:31:30 <rafaelweingartne> I see
14:32:25 <rafaelweingartne> if you all agree, I can change to last_processed_timestamp or last_processed_time, then
14:33:09 <priteau> It would be good to understand if it's the time of the start or end of the last period
14:33:37 <rafaelweingartne> it is the last timestamp that has been processed
14:37:42 <rafaelweingartne> I will do the change then
14:37:43 <rafaelweingartne> and we can discuss afterwards in the patch
14:37:52 <priteau> Thanks
14:38:16 <mkarpiarz> OK
14:45:51 <rafaelweingartne> If we do no have anything else
14:46:02 <rafaelweingartne> I will close the meeting in the next 5 minutes
14:46:08 <rafaelweingartne> Thank you guys for participating. Have a nice week.
14:46:37 <priteau> Thanks rafaelweingartne!
14:47:13 <mkarpiarz> Thank you all!
14:51:32 <rafaelweingartne> #endmeeting