20:00:21 #startmeeting glance 20:00:22 Meeting started Thu Aug 7 20:00:21 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is arnaud. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:00:23 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:00:26 The meeting name has been set to 'glance' 20:00:42 o/ 20:00:46 o/ 20:01:00 o/ 20:01:00 nikhil___, 20:01:22 light agenda today: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda 20:01:25 o/ 20:01:26 o/ 20:01:38 yep 20:01:46 let's wait for TravT to show up 20:01:59 to discuss the metadefs 20:02:38 o/ 20:02:50 so Mark is on vacation 20:03:06 for the next 2/3 weeks 20:03:51 wayne_, do you know if Travis is going to show up? 20:03:57 he is joining 20:04:10 sounds good 20:04:39 yes, i believe so 20:05:08 arnaud: do you know if Mark has sent email to TC (Thierry?) about the Murano topic? 20:05:40 ativelkov, afaik Mark discussed with Thierry last week 20:05:49 o/ 20:06:11 ativelkov, maybe we can add an item to the agenda 20:06:14 to discuss about that later 20:06:14 o/ 20:06:15 ok? 20:06:18 ok, sure 20:06:30 #topic metadefs 20:07:06 so, to give some context, we had an email thread yesterday, to figure out what we want to do with the metadefs patches 20:08:15 ideally, we would need to land these patches as soon as possible to have the Horizon team looking at the Horizon patches 20:08:38 however, from my perspective it doesn't seem reasonable to rush to much to land those 20:09:02 at least not in the next couple of days 20:09:32 so, I suggested to make it a priority to review to have those landed in Juno-3 20:09:46 and at the same time the Horizon team could start looking at the Horizon patches 20:09:55 are you guys fine with that? 20:10:02 agreed, i think to make it landing in j3 makes more sense 20:10:32 TravT, doesn't that sound OK for you? 20:11:09 i also don't like rushing things. only reason was david lyle was resistant to reviewing without it being landed. 20:11:26 but i think he's okay. 20:11:39 I think we should be able to review in parallel 20:11:45 i do too 20:11:52 i'm glad you said that in the email thread 20:12:31 so the idea for glance cores is to review in priority the metadefs stuff 20:12:39 wayne is gonna get them a script to setup glance. i'm also have zip file that will basically give them a mock glance API for metadefs 20:12:57 ok great 20:13:01 so they shouldn't have much reason to push back on reviewing horizon standalone 20:13:14 maybe it would be nice to share the link with all of the information 20:13:16 because i'm sure we'll need several rounds of reviews in horizon. 20:13:37 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-metadata-catalog-tasks 20:14:09 could you give an an update of the patches? 20:14:32 I mean, did you have the time to address the comments posted so far? 20:14:33 well, our guys in Poland are generating a lot of tests right now 20:14:50 lakshmiS and wayne___ can update on where they are 20:15:47 functionality is complete. adding more unit tests 20:16:21 for horizon, i'm bringing the namespace admin console up to date with latest bootstrap changes. pawels is working on the widgets. 20:16:34 ok sounds good 20:16:38 db is functionally complete 20:17:09 i was just looking at the python-glanceclient 20:17:16 i think they need to make some renames 20:17:37 the change on api stuff is complete and pushed up right? 20:17:44 I think from a glance perspective, the most important thing is the API part https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111455/ , even if we kinda agreed on the API at the meetup, it is also good to make sure everybody is happy with it 20:17:46 a bunch of places they need to change metadata --> metadefs 20:18:08 API renaming and refactoring has been done is up for review in patch 20:18:16 ok cool lakshmiS 20:18:33 nice lakshmiS 20:18:59 so I think we are OK with the metadefs at the moment 20:19:06 TravT, anything else you want to add? 20:20:02 the glanceclient will still be a gating factor for final +2 in horizon 20:20:14 so even if we can get horizon reviews started 20:20:35 it won't be able to get merged until the client is there 20:20:58 so, if we could plan this sooner than the very last day of Juno 3, it would be "helpful" 20:21:11 yes, OK 20:21:24 thanks, we appreciate the time and reviews that you are all putting in! 20:21:37 I think we will sync up at each glance irc meeting to see what the status is for those 4 patches 20:21:46 +1 20:22:35 you mentioned earlier some script to set things up? do you know where you will put them? 20:23:08 hmmm... perhaps we can upload to wiki? 20:23:25 sounds good to me 20:23:45 ok. we'll send that out. 20:24:14 please add the URL here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-metadata-catalog-tasks, as soon as you have it 20:24:54 ok, I think we can move to the next item 20:25:04 ok 20:25:09 #topic tasks 20:25:16 nikhil___, you around? 20:25:27 yes 20:25:39 so, just a quick status update 20:25:58 I've made some changes to the patch as per zhi's awesome comments 20:26:14 do you have the link of the patch handy? 20:26:38 yeah, getting the link 20:27:02 however, I'm seeing some race conditions to the intergrations tests which result into failure intermittently 20:27:21 we've observed that internally in our deployment infra as well 20:27:21 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/44355/ ? 20:27:27 yes, thanks 20:27:38 haven't pushed them up yet 20:27:39 do you know approximately what is the reason for that? 20:27:53 yeah, we've anrrowed down the reason 20:27:59 and temporary hack 20:28:23 the eventlet threads invoked while running those lifecycle tests do no finish before the test finishes 20:28:41 so the sqllite db is destroyed and we see trace and sometime hang 20:29:11 the hang is a new thing, possibly due to some latests improvements in the glance code so debugging that is taking time 20:29:12 nikhil___, would task flow solve the problem? 20:29:27 don't think so, it the tests which need modification 20:29:34 oh I see ok 20:29:49 anyways, don't want to block our progress 20:30:14 so, what's your recommendation for now? 20:30:24 if we do not have a elegant solution by tuesday / next week wilkl push up a PS with time.sleep adter some tests 20:30:35 it adds the testing time by a min or so more 20:30:53 ok 20:30:54 however, I'm also looking at the concurrency patch 20:31:11 which patch? :) 20:31:27 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108427/ 20:31:35 that was sup to be discussed last week 20:31:49 we could not due to the store meeting :) 20:31:58 ok 20:32:34 could you tell us more about that patch? is that related to the task patch? 20:32:52 it's not , it's to do more about speeding up the glance tests 20:33:10 nikhil___: interesting, now jenkins tests it ok. i'd like to verify it again, cherry-pick and run it locally. 20:33:22 on some single/virtual core systems, they take almost half an hour to run 20:33:36 zhiyan: yeah, that's what I was wondering too 20:34:19 do you have a number with/without that patch how it takes? 20:34:23 nikhil___: would you mind i recheck/re-run jenkins on it one more? 20:34:29 based on the number of cores that you have :) 20:34:58 arnaud: have some informal numbers atm 20:35:00 they are 20:35:29 arnaud: in my env, i have 4 vcpus, but i can't pass the tests due to i can see some race condition issue one some tests.. 20:35:39 for 4 core system, in parallel they take about 7-7.5 mins 20:36:04 while sequentially, they take 20+ 20:36:21 yes that's definitely much better... 20:36:31 let me try that too on my machine 20:36:49 actually, this is worse on a VM server 20:37:04 it's more than 30 mins for most of the runs 20:37:24 all this is excluding the venv creation 20:37:47 yep... that's a pain 20:37:58 double-check, currently jenkins vm within gate has 4 vcpu right? nikhil___ 20:38:20 not sure zhiyan 20:39:02 i will check it, ok. 20:39:27 ok, so to sum up about the task: we should wait next tuesday before looking at, right? 20:39:43 zhiyan: do you mind pasting a link to failing tests on the review (in a gist or paste) ? 20:40:03 btw, nikhil___ did you address the security issue file to file? 20:40:09 arnaud: yeah, will try to summarize the situation until then and we can take the next best step 20:40:18 sure, if i can get ones. and let me do "recheck no bug" on it. 20:40:28 arnaud: will have it then (not yet) 20:40:39 ok, great 20:40:47 I mean, it's wip (security concern) 20:40:56 zhiyan: sure, thanks 20:41:27 ok, so next on our agenda is the glance.store lib 20:41:34 #topic glance.store 20:41:50 flaper87|afk, seems to be AFK 20:42:10 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100636/ 20:42:34 based on our poll last week, we decided to continue the efforts to have the glance.store library 20:43:12 ok, great. so what's next for glance? or do we keep them separate for now? 20:43:41 so apparently flaper87|afk released an alpha version of the lib: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/glance.store/0.0.1a2 20:44:33 with that, there should not have other blockers to integrate with glance 20:45:08 however, we have a couple of patches in the stores that are in the glance codebase but not in the glance.store codebase 20:45:15 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100636/ 20:45:19 so, we will need to port them 20:45:36 the problem being that it's not a clean patch from what I have seen 20:46:07 I would prefer to wait until at least a stable beta is released 20:46:20 however, +1 to getting this in j-3 20:46:48 so, I think the rule for now is to that: before accepting a store patch to glance, we need to have the patch proposed to to glance.store with green jenkins 20:47:02 how to get the function/patch list for the port 20:47:09 arnaud: yes, thanks wanted to express the same concern 20:47:15 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/glance.store,n,z 20:47:30 for now there is nothing to review, but I expect this to grow 20:47:30 :) 20:47:42 also, do we have the links to those coulpe commits that are in glance and not in the glance.store lib ? 20:48:01 flaper87|afk, might have it 20:48:07 it should be easy to get 20:48:15 sure 20:48:30 #action get the list of patches that are in glance and not glance.store 20:49:21 so hopefully this integration with glance will happen soon 20:50:01 :) 20:50:12 ativelkov, would you mind giving an update on artifacts? 20:50:24 sure 20:50:29 #topic artifacts 20:52:21 arnaud: ativelkov will reconnect in a second. he's got disconnected from irc bouncer 20:52:39 I've updated the spec, API and data model based on what we had discussed on the mini-summit 20:52:39 We'll submit for the review soon 20:52:45 Got some feedback from TravT about the type-specific metadata field and their types 20:52:58 did you get messages from me? 20:53:07 yes ativelkov 20:53:11 Seems like I've gor some network issues, sorry 20:53:51 so, we are going to take a look at the updated spec then 20:54:07 So, in general I am trying to align the artifact metadata definitions with the metadefs by now. Will need some help from TravT and his team with this 20:54:42 is this feature planned for j-3 or k-1 now ? 20:54:58 yes, this is great, it will be nice if there is consistency between them 20:55:17 ativelkov: yes 20:55:19 nikhil___: still planning to fit this inside j3 20:55:25 I can help 20:55:26 ok, thanks 20:55:34 Yet it takes longer then I expected initially 20:56:11 also, once we get metadefs landed, i think lakshmiS and wayne_ will be able to help with code 20:56:18 great, thanks! 20:56:45 ativelkov, you want to share the Murano proposal with the team? 20:56:51 we don't have much time left 20:57:05 that's better question to ruhe, as he is Murano's PTL now 20:57:34 arnaud: i'd like to hear from Mark first 20:57:52 on the results of his discussion with Thierry 20:57:56 sure, no problem. Since we don't have time left anyway, that's better :) 20:58:08 BTW, we'got one more man working with me on Glance from Mirantis' side 20:58:18 rvasilets, welcome ;) 20:58:33 great welcome rvasilets 20:58:46 #topic open discussion 20:59:17 If we have any "low hanging fruits" or something for rvasilets to get familiar with the codebase - that would help a lot 20:59:51 we definitely need to do a better job at tagging bugs... 21:00:07 Hello to all. I'm assigned at glance. Can someone give me some small bug/ I want to fix it. Thanks, Roman. 21:00:27 any plans on merging https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103959/ soon. we can include this feature in metadefs once the patch merges or add this feature in next patch 21:00:44 have you looked at https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bugs?field.tag=low-hanging-fruit ? 21:01:04 yes lakshmiS, this will land soon 21:01:12 I am going to re-review it later today 21:01:20 ok, we are overtime 21:01:23 ok thx 21:01:24 thanks guys 21:01:27 #endmeeting