14:00:00 #startmeeting cloudkitty 14:00:00 Meeting started Mon Nov 29 14:00:00 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rafaelweingartner. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:00 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:00:00 The meeting name has been set to 'cloudkitty' 14:00:10 Roll count 14:01:11 Hello priteau: 14:01:16 Hello 14:01:24 I just started the meeting 14:01:25 Sorry, IRC bouncer has died 14:01:41 I was meeting for the roll count 14:01:55 I was waiting for the roll count responses** 14:02:45 Hi! 14:03:15 Hello mkarpiarz! 14:03:59 I guess we can start with the target reviews of the meeting 14:04:12 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/774520 14:04:30 priteau: there was a request from you there. Is this patch missing something else? 14:04:54 Checking 14:05:12 awesome, thanks 14:05:46 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/792090 14:05:57 mkarpiarz: were you able to check that patch? 14:06:29 Not yet, sorry. 14:07:44 I was having problems with making pyscripts work in my test environment and no time to get to the bottom of it. 14:07:46 Small doc syntax comment on the first 14:12:23 Rafael Weingartner proposed openstack/cloudkitty master: Introduce "response_format" for the V2 summary API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/774520 14:13:47 Rafael Weingartner proposed openstack/cloudkitty master: Introduce "response_format" for the V2 summary API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/774520 14:15:18 priteau: I fixed the issue in the first patch 14:15:23 THanks 14:15:30 do you guys think that we can merge it, as soon as the tests pass? 14:16:14 Yes for me 14:16:18 ok 14:16:31 I'll just check the output of the doc generation 14:16:37 Mariusz had already tested, and approved that one 14:16:55 Moving on to: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/792090 14:17:11 should we wait for Mariusz tests? Or, maybe, can we move on ans merge this one 14:18:01 I think this change can be merged safely, regardless of my tests. 14:18:39 Ok, I will merge it then 14:19:13 +1 14:19:31 Moving on to: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/775359 14:19:43 we reviewed this patch, and the author was not responding 14:20:00 I then, reached the author, and he said that he was going to address our reviews 14:20:17 however, almost two months have gone by, and still we do not have an answer 14:21:55 should we take over the patch? And execute the improvents ourselves? 14:22:03 I will check if I can see it in some of our deployments 14:22:19 I've seen the issue before but that environment must have been upgraded since 14:23:24 ok 14:23:46 I will mark it as yours, I mean, as the person investigating and maybe improving it 14:23:55 then, we can discuss it again during our next meeting 14:24:29 and, finally the last one 14:24:32 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/777442 14:24:49 priteau: you requested some changes that were addressed 14:24:59 do you have something else to add there? Or, maybe, can we move on and merge it 14:27:48 Merged 14:29:40 awesome, thanks 14:30:17 do you guys have any other priority for our next meeting? 14:31:36 zigo's patch 14:31:43 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/814789 14:32:18 priteau: What don't you understand ? 14:32:24 ok 14:32:30 I will add for our next meeting 14:32:58 Zigo: why using "W: ...." in the log message 14:33:07 I missed that during my review 14:33:07 I think W=warning 14:33:18 that is not the proper way 14:33:19 W stands for Warning, I can either remove it or write warning in full. 14:33:25 Let me know what you decide. 14:33:26 That's not really standard 14:33:30 LOG.warning'( 14:33:36 LOG.debug = for debug 14:33:41 LOG.warning = for warning 14:33:46 I just grepped through most openstack projects and no LOG statements are using this 14:33:49 Well, I still think LOG.debug is the way... 14:33:50 LOG.info = for general information 14:33:52 and so on 14:33:55 It will print too much otherwise. 14:34:08 So I can just remove the "W:" then. 14:34:10 I think you can just remove W" 14:34:14 if it is a debug message, therefore it is not warning 14:34:18 so, no need for the W 14:34:19 The message is good enough 14:34:31 +1 14:34:47 There you go ! 14:34:48 Thomas Goirand proposed openstack/cloudkitty master: Adding two options in fetcher_keystone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/814789 14:34:54 Please review ... :) 14:35:15 Just left another comment 14:35:53 anyways, we can finish this patch review in our next meeting, and execute the review rounds in an async fashion 14:36:27 priteau: Done. 14:36:29 Thomas Goirand proposed openstack/cloudkitty master: Adding two options in fetcher_keystone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/814789 14:36:50 besides this patch, do you guys have any other priority? 14:37:19 Nothing from my side. 14:37:25 Otherwise, I will grab the ones I find most promissing, or almost ready for our next meeting 14:37:25 Internally, we added an index in the rated_dataframe, it'd be nice if it was added upstream too. 14:37:40 your patch would be welcome :) 14:37:41 Though I don't think we / I have enough skills to do that with SQLAlchemy. 14:37:55 If anyone can show me how, I'll do it. 14:38:05 (an example somewhere ?) 14:38:44 We went from 23 seconds per query to 0.03 with the index, so it's quite important ! 14:38:54 (millions of records...) 14:38:59 can you open a bug report? 14:39:04 Sure ! 14:39:06 then, we can move on from there 14:39:11 Thanks. 14:39:12 and maybe, I can create the patch 14:39:58 And now, for the final minutes, I will open to general/open issues/questions that one might have 14:40:01 #topic AOB 14:40:23 In Storyboard, right? 14:40:28 zigo: yes 14:40:56 One more thing I'd like to discuss. 14:41:12 We have our billing system querying Cloudkitty for each project one by one, each hours. 14:41:27 Though we don't know if a project has finished to be rated for the queried hour ... 14:41:33 Shouldn't that be exposed to the API ? 14:42:37 you can check the latest processing state of the project 14:42:51 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/774634 14:43:07 last_processed_timestamp will be marked with the timestamp of the last processed timestamp 14:43:13 Oh, thanks. 14:43:24 We're using Victoria in production, which is why we don't have this... 14:43:32 I'll backport the patch, that's very helpful, thanks again. 14:45:15 welcome 14:50:34 I had an issue with my Internet connection 14:50:44 so, I guess that we can close for now, right? 14:50:51 do you guys have something else to add 14:50:55 ? 14:51:52 Nothing from me 14:52:22 I'm good too. 14:52:23 Ok 14:52:26 Thank you guys for participating. Have a nice week. 14:52:31 #endmeeting