14:00:10 <pdeore> #startmeeting glance
14:00:10 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu Jun  2 14:00:10 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is pdeore. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:10 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:10 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'glance'
14:00:10 <pdeore> #topic roll call
14:00:10 <pdeore> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda
14:00:15 <pdeore> o/
14:00:15 <abhishekk> o/
14:00:19 <dansmith> o/
14:00:25 <rosmaita> o/
14:00:51 <mrjoshi> o/
14:01:13 <pdeore> lets wait few minutes for everyone to join
14:01:34 * abhishekk There is intermittent electricity failure at my end since afternoon, I might get disconnected in between
14:02:10 <jokke_> o/
14:02:26 <croelandt> o/
14:02:28 <pdeore> let's start :)
14:02:32 <pdeore> #topic release/periodic jobs
14:02:48 <pdeore> We have skipped glance M1 tag due to gate issues
14:03:14 <pdeore> Periodic Jobs, all green except the 'oslo master' and 'translation update' jobs failure due to some python version dependency conflicts
14:03:31 <abhishekk> ack
14:04:05 <pdeore> moving ahead
14:04:11 <pdeore> #topic intermittent failure on glance-multistore-cinder-import job
14:04:16 <pdeore> rosmaita, ^
14:04:30 <rosmaita> thanks
14:04:38 <rosmaita> abhishekk left a comment
14:05:02 <rosmaita> i'll see if we can figure out what the race condition could be
14:05:13 <rosmaita> it's intermittent, so not a big deal ATM
14:05:13 <abhishekk> Yes, I have tried it to reproduce locally but not able to do it
14:05:20 <abhishekk> https://github.com/openstack/glance/blob/master/glance/api/v2/image_data.py#L140
14:05:27 <abhishekk> this is where it is failing sometime
14:05:48 <rosmaita> ok, that is helpful
14:05:53 <rosmaita> that's all i have
14:06:07 <pdeore> ack, moving ahead
14:06:10 <pdeore> #topic Spec for review
14:06:16 <abhishekk> rosmaita, let me know if anything is needed
14:06:26 <rosmaita> ty
14:06:31 <pdeore> review request again for the location APIs spec (whoami-rajat) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance-specs/+/84088
14:06:45 <whoami-rajat> hey
14:06:50 <jokke_> yes, my bad I missed the updates on that earlier
14:07:00 <jokke_> on my todo list for today
14:07:06 <jokke_> been bit hectic
14:07:13 <whoami-rajat> jokke_, ack thanks!
14:07:15 <dansmith> whoami-rajat: is that marked as draft?
14:07:26 <dansmith> oh, no that url must be wrong
14:07:34 <whoami-rajat> dansmith, i think it should be active
14:07:38 <dansmith> pdeore: ^
14:07:49 <rosmaita> missing a digit, i think
14:07:54 <dansmith> yeah
14:07:58 <whoami-rajat> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance-specs/+/840882
14:07:58 <dansmith> ends in -2
14:07:59 <pdeore> oops!!
14:07:59 <pdeore> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance-specs/+/840882
14:08:04 <whoami-rajat> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance-specs/+/840882
14:08:43 <whoami-rajat> wanted to request to at least remove the -2 so it doesn't discourage other reviewers from taking a look :)
14:08:46 <abhishekk> yep, I think we should follow a practice of avoiding putting -2 as per our core review guidelines
14:08:49 <whoami-rajat> i mean if the concerns are addressed ^^
14:08:59 <dansmith> abhishekk: agree
14:09:11 <whoami-rajat> abhishekk, +1
14:09:13 <abhishekk> whoami-rajat, has pointed it out to me that we have these guidelines
14:09:13 <jokke_> whoami-rajat: yeah, will read it through and act accordingly
14:09:23 <jokke_> sorry for leaving it hanging for that long
14:09:41 <abhishekk> no worries
14:10:08 <pdeore> Spec for SRBAC system admin persona support in glance - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance-specs/+/844289
14:10:26 <jokke_> abhishekk: I say this again, feel free to remove me from core if you don't want me using my +-2 votes ;)
14:10:29 <abhishekk> I had a look at it and given some suggestions
14:10:45 <pdeore> I have submitted a spec for whatever we discussed so far on handling the owner issue for system scope
14:11:32 <jokke_> pdeore: saw that today. Will hopefully read through it too
14:11:58 <pdeore> abhishekk, I've addressed your comments, kindly have a look at new patch set
14:12:06 <abhishekk> jokke_, noted, I need to see everyone's interest is maintained
14:12:06 <pdeore> jokke_, thannks!
14:12:25 <abhishekk> pdeore, It needs some rewording, I will have a look at it once again
14:12:39 <pdeore> abhishekk, ack
14:13:07 <pdeore> Update proposal for duplicate image download - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance-specs/+/734683
14:13:21 <pdeore> this one also needs some reviews
14:13:50 <abhishekk> this is pending for long, I think  rosmaita have some concerns/suggestions about it
14:15:07 <pdeore> ok, moving ahead
14:15:11 <rosmaita> i haven't looked at the latest version yet
14:15:11 <pdeore> #topic Are the version tests useless?
14:15:48 <pdeore> rosmaita, ^
14:17:50 <rosmaita> sorry
14:18:34 <pdeore> np :)
14:18:35 <rosmaita> this is what i am talking about
14:18:40 <rosmaita> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/843028
14:19:25 <dansmith> I would also add in that making the version we expose differ based on config is also not a great experience, which makes those tests far more complicated than need be
14:19:39 <abhishekk> rosmaita, afaik, this version increment is quiet messy at this moment and we need to sort it out
14:19:43 <rosmaita> yeah, and that's why i think they didn't break and detect the problem
14:20:20 <rosmaita> anyway, i guess my real point is that if you review anything that changes the version, make sure it is testing the right stuff
14:21:07 <rosmaita> ok, that's all from me, unless anyone has questions
14:21:08 <abhishekk> ++
14:21:15 <pdeore> ++
14:21:45 <dansmith> could we just discuss and move towards a single linear monotonically increasing version?
14:21:52 <jokke_> So say if it was just testing constants (not our first test doing so) I'd agree 100% now maybe only 90% :P
14:21:54 <dansmith> and stop the variation based on config?
14:23:05 <abhishekk> +1 for stopping increasing version based on config
14:23:28 <jokke_> dansmith: IIRC there is nothing that is based on config that is not already deprecated to be removed. All of the versions that are config dependant should be new features to be always on, but configurable at the beginning
14:24:03 <abhishekk> it is way more difficult to maintain these versions now as we have couple of config options in there
14:24:08 <dansmith> jokke_: okay, I think we had a couple things recently added that kept the same "if this is not enabled, then fall back in version"
14:24:28 <abhishekk> for multi store and image cache APIs
14:24:34 <dansmith> jokke_: but maybe we just need a comment in there that we should stop with the config-based versioning
14:24:44 <dansmith> and let the old stuff age out
14:24:45 <jokke_> well multi-store config is going away
14:25:07 <dansmith> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/843028/2/glance/api/versions.py
14:25:20 <dansmith> the image_cache_dir controls which version we expose, for example
14:25:21 <abhishekk> not until we will be stopping single store support which will take couple of cycles atleast
14:25:46 <dansmith> and even still, you can't request the old version and get the old behavior (AFAIK) so I don't know why we wouldn't just collapse everything that is there right now
14:25:56 <rosmaita> the version negotiation will 404 if someone requests /v2.15/whatever and it's not enabled
14:25:56 <jokke_> abhishekk: my point, it's not planned to be there for ever, just ended up being there longer than we hoped for
14:25:56 <dansmith> and expose 2.16 as the current
14:26:37 <dansmith> rosmaita: but it doesn't mean anything right? it's silly to say 2.13 is enabled and 2.16 is enabled, but 2.15 is disabled
14:26:52 <rosmaita> well, it sort of gives you some info
14:26:52 <jokke_> so I've never understood the need for minor version API entrypoints in first place as we're not microversioning anything
14:27:01 <jokke_> it's just indicator
14:27:26 <jokke_> So it shouldn't be headace to anyone either just always call v2/foo/bar and you're grand
14:27:36 <abhishekk> jokke_, right, the point is it is difficult to maintain and to much confusing even for me to address new version bump if required
14:28:50 <dansmith> rosmaita: if you're saying they're supposed to be feature flags, I think it's super confusing for them to have linear numbers, instead of names or uuids :)
14:29:11 <jokke_> I guess it's good question to the next user survey if anyone is actually looking at the version info ... iirc I was this great idea of having autogenerating client based on schemas that drove us to the api versioning in the first place
14:29:16 <dansmith> and the current/supported classification would make even less sense
14:29:17 <rosmaita> i'm not sure what i'm saying
14:29:28 <dansmith> okay :)
14:29:31 <rosmaita> but it does help to know what version of the api you are contacting
14:29:44 <rosmaita> because if it's train, there's stuff you won't be able to do
14:29:55 <dansmith> rosmaita: right, but if the top version comes and goes based on config,
14:29:58 <dansmith> then you don't know
14:30:14 <rosmaita> well, you know for the site you are contacting, right?
14:30:20 <dansmith> so if you're trying to be bug compatible with train, but you can't tell if it's train or ussuri because config changes it, then you're hosed
14:30:34 <jokke_> The minor API version is there to indicate change in the API ... we have releases without API version bump and we have ones with. That's all it is, a flag "smething in the API has changed since the previous"
14:30:44 <jokke_> so it's not feature flag per se
14:30:45 <dansmith> right,
14:30:55 <dansmith> and if we have one version in a release that is dependent on config,
14:31:07 <dansmith> then you could look like release N or N-1 depending on your config
14:31:41 <jokke_> we've had quite a few of them, clearing out as the config options gets finally removed that allowed disabling the features causing the bump
14:32:43 <dansmith> well, perhaps a topic for the next ptg
14:32:50 <jokke_> I think the most confusing part is we have no documentation mapping what feature caused which version bump, so people really can't figure any of that out without looking git logs
14:33:07 <dansmith> jokke_: well, then let's torch it for sure :)
14:33:09 <abhishekk> I think to be short term solution we should carefully review a version bump patch, long term create a survey to check if version info is used or not and then follow some standard for version increase thereafter
14:33:30 <rosmaita> i left some comments on the patch that's up to fix the version history in the api-ref
14:34:03 <jokke_> I'd say if it's not useful lets get rid of the minor version in that api version all together and call it v2 like everyone using it :P
14:34:56 <jokke_> and we can just put a shim in place that routes /v2*/ -> /v2/
14:36:01 <jokke_> So I'm not convinced the tests are useless, the minor version numbers might be :D
14:36:27 <rosmaita> well, it would be helpful to know what's new in the API
14:36:36 <rosmaita> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/841053/2/api-ref/source/versions/index.rst#25
14:37:09 <jokke_> rosmaita: true, I wish we had something like concise notes for each release highlighting new features and changes
14:37:18 <jokke_> oh wait :P
14:39:57 <abhishekk> rosmaita, I think if owner is not around I will work on that patch
14:40:52 <rosmaita> that's ok with me
14:42:18 <abhishekk> I have noted this topic to be discussed in next PTG where probably we will meet in person
14:43:30 <pdeore> cool, shall we move to next topic ?
14:43:34 <abhishekk> lets move ahead for now
14:43:36 <rosmaita> in fabulous columbus, ohio!!!
14:43:42 <abhishekk> yep
14:44:04 <pdeore> moving to open discussion
14:44:22 <pdeore> #Open Discussion
14:44:22 <croelandt> Could Core take a few minutes to look at stable patches? :)
14:44:30 <croelandt> I think we can abandon the Victoria one
14:44:36 <croelandt> and there are a few that could use some +2s
14:44:48 <dansmith> croelandt: s/core/stable core/ :)
14:44:49 <abhishekk> dansmith, I have pushed new revision to immediate caching of images
14:45:05 <croelandt> dansmith: yes :)
14:45:07 <dansmith> abhishekk: just recently I assume? I looked yesterday and it was still failing
14:45:16 <abhishekk> its still WIP though
14:45:22 <abhishekk> not fixed tests atm
14:45:26 <dansmith> oh okay
14:45:53 <abhishekk> just wanted to make sure that approach is OK before moving to fix tests
14:46:02 <dansmith> okay I'll look
14:46:09 <abhishekk> croelandt, we can abandon victoria patches
14:46:27 <abhishekk> I will have a look at others today or tomorrow morning
14:46:31 <croelandt> ok ok
14:46:31 <abhishekk> dasm|off, thank you
14:47:01 <abhishekk> I am not able to found victor or the other member who were working on glance-download import method
14:47:08 <abhishekk> alistarle, around?
14:47:43 <abhishekk> dansmith, thank you
14:48:13 * abhishekk tagged different handle by mistake
14:49:42 <pdeore> anyone has anything else to discuss? or we are done for today ? :)
14:50:35 <jokke_> I have nothing, thnx
14:50:53 <abhishekk> nothing from me as well
14:51:13 <abhishekk> pdeore, just follow up for devstack multistore related patches with devstack team
14:51:31 <pdeore> abhishekk, sure
14:51:54 <abhishekk> yeah, we need to get it merged so that we can start work towards removing single store support
14:52:16 <alistarle> Hi, I see you comment on the glance patch abishek
14:52:32 <abhishekk> alistarle, yes
14:52:39 <abhishekk> just added it now
14:52:59 <alistarle> sorry for that, indeed Pierre Samuel is currently in hollyday, he will be back next week
14:53:17 <abhishekk> ack, no worries
14:53:29 <abhishekk> let us know if you guys need any help
14:53:34 <alistarle> we just need to write tests normally, this code is already in production on our side and seems to work well
14:54:09 <abhishekk> yeah, I have also given some reference to Pierre about coding standards which needs  to be followed
14:54:13 <alistarle> yeah sure, you can say in the patch if there is anything you think is not right, we will fix it right away
14:54:31 <abhishekk> other than that I will have a look again at it
14:54:43 <alistarle> abhishekk have you seen something which are not following the guideline ?
14:55:22 <abhishekk> I don't remember it now, but will highlight it on the patch
14:55:37 <abhishekk> one thing is related to import
14:55:54 <abhishekk> where method name or exception class is imported which is not as per Openstack standard
14:56:23 <abhishekk> will highlight those on the patch
14:57:17 <abhishekk> last 3 minutes
14:57:25 <alistarle> yes please, we'll take care of that. And if you think the overall implementation is good we will fix and write the tests for the feature :)
14:57:52 <abhishekk> alistarle, ack, thank you
14:58:25 <pdeore> Thanks everyone for joining!!
14:59:32 <rosmaita> bye!
14:59:41 <jokke_> thanks all
15:00:01 <pdeore> #endmeeting