00:06:44 #startmeeting CongressTeamMeeting 00:06:45 Meeting started Thu Mar 17 00:06:44 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is thinrichs. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 00:06:46 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 00:06:49 The meeting name has been set to 'congressteammeeting' 00:07:20 Note for those reading the logs: we're having a 2nd instance of the meeting since some of us forgot about daylight savings. 00:08:06 Here are the details about the congress talks… 00:08:07 Thu 28 11:00a - 11:40a 00:08:07 Enforcing Application SLAs with Congress and Monasca (fabiog) 00:08:08 Thu 28 11:50a-12:30 00:08:08 Congress in NFV-based Mobile Cellular Network Fault Recovery (masahito) 00:08:08 Thu 28 1:30-2:10p 00:08:08 Policy Canvas: Draw your policies for OpenStack services (JK) 00:08:08 Thu 28  2:20-3:00p 00:08:09 Watcher a Resource Manager for OpenStack: Plans for the N-release and beyond (Congress sibling) 00:08:15 Mark them down on your calendars so you don't miss out. 00:08:16 hi sorry guys I am late 00:08:21 fabig: no problem 00:08:35 I was just pointing out that you've got a talk in Austin about Monasca and Congress 00:09:00 Also for Austin... 00:09:29 We have been allocated 3 working sessions: smaller rooms where we can have design discussions amongst the team and possibly a few others. 00:09:47 We also have 1 fishbowl room: a larger one where the goal is to get broader participation 00:10:47 When asked about what we'd use it for I suggested having a discussion about different integrations with other projects: Monasca for sure, possibly Nova, Keystone 00:11:10 thinrichs: maybe having the policy delegation to other project could be a good topic too 00:11:23 fabig: yep 00:11:42 thinrichs: like how to instruct Nova or Neutron to enforce something that Congress has set-up 00:11:56 fabig: yep 00:12:33 I think there's plenty to discuss 00:13:54 Any questions/comments? 00:14:32 thinrichs: Mainly what day's we have room? 00:14:50 s/day's/days/ 00:14:52 masahito: we don't know about the rooms yet, 00:15:04 thinrichs: got it. 00:15:11 but I did request our rooms not to be scheduled at the same time as any of those talks 00:16:14 #topic PTL elections 00:16:18 Is remote participation feasible this time for the design summits? 00:16:49 madhumohan: usually not, just because there aren't phones, video-conference equipment 00:17:03 etherpad is possible, of course 00:17:09 and I think that's what most teams do, 00:17:25 but it's also pretty difficult to keep the etherpad up to date with the discussion that's happening 00:18:25 What we usually do is put the topics into the etherpad so that people can put their questions/comments about the topic into the etherpad. 00:18:56 Then we can be sure to discuss them and try to capture the part of the discussion relevant to that question in the etherpad. 00:19:48 I was thinking we'd spend 1 session on the distributed architecture, working out any details that are left. 00:20:15 And then 1 session on how we might use that architecture to deploy Congress with HA and high-throughput. 00:20:16 is it feasible to do a public livestream? 00:20:34 then others can follow and participate via etherpad / irc 00:21:23 ekcs: there aren't usually phones/vidoe, which would mean someone would try to (furiously) transcribe the discussion into the etherpad 00:21:56 I mean livestream by webcam/microphone sent out over internet 00:22:13 you could have a laptop in the room with a hangout open 00:22:28 but i guess there's no infrastructure for that so it be pretty best-effort... 00:22:53 yea just comes down to how much bandwidth we’ll have. 00:23:05 And how flakey the hotel wireless is 00:23:41 So we'll need to play it by ear once we get there, 00:23:46 got it. 00:23:50 but we can definitely set up the etherpads in advance 00:24:01 Moving on… 00:24:05 #topic PTL election 00:24:10 PTL election season is here. 00:24:32 I'm running again this cycle, but if anyone else is interested in running, please do so. 00:24:46 I'm happy to talk with people about what is entailed, how much work is involved, etc. 00:24:55 Just let me know either now, by email, whatever 00:25:34 Deadline is soon, so don't wait. 00:25:53 Questions, comments? 00:26:47 #topic Mitaka release 00:27:05 I see no code in review that should be merged before mitaka. 00:27:18 Does anyone know of any bugs that need to be fixed before Mitaka? 00:27:34 More generally, how is your testing going? 00:28:52 thinrichs: im trying to get that congress_ha tempest tests working , but strangely it works fine in local env, but fails in gate 00:29:25 ramineni_: are those the tests that spin up another instance of Congress? 00:29:32 thinrichs: yes 00:29:42 Are you running it locally and using a virtualenv? 00:30:06 thinrichs: not using venev 00:30:10 If you run ./run_tempest -N … then you're NOT using a virtualenv 00:30:32 thinrichs: actually both, i tried with tox too, which uses venev .. then also it works 00:30:42 thinrichs: both commands owrk in my env 00:30:43 In the gate, tempest always runs in a virtualenv 00:30:51 Hmmm. 00:31:34 Permissions? 00:31:48 thinrichs: ill check on that again, resolved some issues related to tests , but havent got fully functional yet 00:31:50 Does the 2nd Congress instance start up properly? 00:32:49 thinrichs: ya, i can see the pid, ill add some logging again to get the deatils why it fail in gate 00:33:19 ramineni_: sounds good. 00:33:24 thinrichs: it would have been esier , if it fails in local env too :) 00:33:30 I don't have any better advice for you. 00:33:56 When I ran into this, I found the most important thing in making progress was figuring out how to make it fail locally 00:34:51 ramineni_: let me know if you want to bounce ideas off someone. That can get frustrating quickly, so don't hesitate to reach out. 00:35:16 thinrichs: sure, thanks 00:35:34 masahito: how's your testing going? Had a chance to do some manual testing of the push driver? 00:36:25 I tested push-driver and overall it works well. 00:36:40 masahito: cool! 00:36:48 I just find one bug that already resolved. 00:37:10 ekcs was asking if we had a script of manual tests that we run before a release 00:37:36 I said I'd try to record some of the manual tests that I run. 00:37:48 It'd be good if we had a couple push tests too. 00:38:23 masahito: do we have a CLI command for pushing data into the server? 00:38:35 no 00:39:13 masahito: Unless there's a reason we don't want that CLI command, let's add one in Newton. 00:39:18 because we don't have an impl for push driver 00:40:01 We don't have any drivers that let you push data in? 00:40:08 right. 00:40:14 How did you test it? 00:40:46 ooh. I have one that I've not pushed to gerrit yet. 00:41:28 I mean we don't have any driver in *master* of Congress community. 00:41:36 Is it a lot of code? Does it make sense to merge even a really simple one by Mitaka? 00:42:22 I wonder if it’s easy to make a TestPushDriver. 00:42:33 The driver is related to my presentation. 00:43:26 I was thinking that a simple driver where people can push whatever data, and then write policy over that data. 00:43:49 I think we'd just need to implement a driver with 1 method, right? 00:43:55 The only tricky bit was computing the schema. 00:44:03 But we could hack something in for that. 00:44:14 It's not a lot of code, but the schema of its translator isn't fixed yet. 00:45:25 thinrichs: right. 00:45:53 masahito: can you take an action item to explain what is necessary to the rest of us, so we can figure out whether to add something? 00:46:01 Maybe start a thread on the mailing list 00:46:11 thinrichs: got it. 00:46:27 We need to make the decision soon, and I think having a simple push driver in place would be worth the risk of a bug. 00:46:42 #action: masahito will follow up on whether to add a push driver for Mitaka 00:47:06 Anyone else have anything for Mitaka? 00:47:25 I just ran into this: This bug hasn't quite been fixed completely. When I use an unknown name before the :, I get the misleading "rule already exists error" 00:47:25 https://bugs.launchpad.net/congress/+bug/1553433 00:47:27 Launchpad bug 1553433 in congress ""Rule already exists" error when using non-existent named parameter" [Undecided,Fix released] - Assigned to Anusha (anusha-iiitm) 00:47:27 I'm planning to do some manual testing this week. 00:47:27 Not exactly sure what's the correct behavior because when we use an unknown name we don't know whether it's a datasource or not. 00:47:27 I'll re-open the bug when we're done. 00:48:14 ekcs: Rejecting the rule is correct, but it's a misleading error message? 00:48:33 yup. like this. 00:48:33 $ openstack congress policy rule create classification ' 00:48:34 a :- blah:w(id=y)' 00:48:35 Rule already exists::(1008) Rule already exists (HTTP 409) (Request-ID: req-f5b5f25a-40cc-4278-ad7b-cc49d9a72779) 00:48:55 What if you insert... 00:49:00 a :- blah:p(x) 00:49:03 Same problem? 00:49:14 That is, is this related to column refs or not? 00:49:49 That works fine. The issue is we can’t do column ref elimination. 00:50:21 you did a fix that rejects any column references outright for something that’s a policy table. 00:50:44 and give this message. $ openstack congress policy rule create classification 'a :- action:w(id=y)' 00:50:45 Syntax error for rule::Literal action:w(id=y) uses column references, but 'action' does not reference a datasource policy (HTTP 400) 00:51:11 I'd think we'd want the same error message for your case, right? 00:51:27 but the fix didn’t apply to unknown name before the : 00:51:31 Seems like there's a case we're missing then. 00:51:31 Right. 00:51:32 Got it. 00:51:41 So that should be a simpl-ish fix. 00:51:44 Right? 00:51:48 think so. 00:51:55 Sounds good. 00:52:22 Let's open it up for discussion the last few minutes. 00:52:27 #topic open discussion 00:53:21 Almost forgot... 00:54:13 Our outstanding items before being ready with the Mitaka release... 00:54:17 1. ekcs's fix 00:54:20 2. masahito's push driver 00:54:27 3. thinrichs's testing pass 00:54:31 4. other testing 00:55:02 If we're all still busy testing, there's no pressure to cut a release candidate and open master for non-mitaka commits. 00:55:30 So I'd propose working through at least 1 and 3 before cutting a release candidate. 00:56:13 If (1) and (3) go well, we go ahead and cut the release branch and reopen master. 00:56:18 How does that sound? 00:56:31 souds good. 00:57:02 masahito, ramineni_, tsandall, fabig: what do you think? 00:57:27 sounds good. 00:57:32 +1 00:57:33 sounds good 00:57:41 +1 00:57:52 Good. 00:58:04 Anything else to discuss with our remaining 3 minutes? 00:59:16 Thanks all! 00:59:54 Just noticed: only hours left to become a PTL candidate! 01:00:57 #endmeeting