20:00:15 #startmeeting heat 20:00:16 Meeting started Wed Jan 27 20:00:15 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is skraynev_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:00:18 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:00:20 The meeting name has been set to 'heat' 20:00:23 Hi 20:00:30 #topic rollcall 20:00:31 o/ 20:00:32 o/ 20:01:12 shardy, stevebaker, zaneb 20:01:33 ... slackers :) 20:01:50 sorry, will only have 5% attention on this today 20:01:51 lol ;) 20:01:58 actually, i shouldn't start out talking trash, I need to beg for core reviewers on one of my patches 20:02:24 zaneb: np. We have a short agenda, just want to make sure, that somebody else here ;) 20:02:41 jdob: just be grateful you're not doing what I've been doing all day ;) 20:03:04 i have no idea what you've been doing, but I can say with 100% certainty that i am glad it's you and not me 20:03:11 o/ 20:03:40 o/ 20:03:40 jdob: let's continue it in Open discussion, please 20:03:54 * jdob quiets down 20:03:55 #topic Adding items to agenda 20:04:10 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/HeatAgenda#Agenda_.282016-01-27_2000_UTC.29 20:04:22 as I told it's really short :) 20:04:50 so let's do it quick and got to Open discussion 20:05:08 if nobody don;t mind of course ;) 20:05:21 oops..I forgot to add mine to the agenda 20:05:36 jreeves: do it ;) 20:05:43 #topic Remove useless job for heatclient and find alternative 20:06:24 we have a bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-heatclient/+bug/1532867 20:06:26 Launchpad bug 1532867 in python-heatclient "gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-src-python-heatclient is useless" [Medium,Triaged] - Assigned to Sergey Kraynev (skraynev) 20:06:43 This job does not make sense for us gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-src-python-heatclient 20:06:59 because it does not execute any Heat related tests 20:07:02 kill it with fire 20:07:28 Yes, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/272411/ 20:07:30 agenda updated 20:07:34 it's already here ^ 20:07:39 so 20:07:50 do we need some alternative for it? 20:08:34 some tempest job or we may improve our own functional tests for heatclient and it will be enough ? 20:08:40 skraynev: what was it "supposed" to do? 20:09:05 is it worth investing in replacing whatever it's supposed to do against heat client or potentially rewrite for OSC? 20:09:20 skraynev: and has our current gate not given us enough confidence? 20:09:53 jdob: was just about to say, I agree it doesn't make much sense unless we start writing functional tests for the OSC stuff 20:10:24 randallburt: as I see, it tries to execute tempest.api tests 20:10:35 f.e. tempest.api.orchestration.stacks.test_neutron_resources.NeutronResourcesTestJSON 20:11:23 TBH, I have not checked, what exactly this test does 20:11:26 skraynev_: but tempest uses its own client so it is in fact pointless 20:12:39 anyway, fwiw, I would say we just remove it since its not doing anything for us and write functional jobs that run the osc plugins against devstack 20:12:49 randallburt: agree, but it might have some useful test cases. Probably the best solution - check what tests it had and add something similar to our internal functional tests (if it be really valuable for us) 20:12:50 +1 20:13:04 and not try and write new tests for the existing client 20:13:28 randallburt: good point. I forgot about it. 20:14:11 #action don't wtite new functional tests for old client methods. Do it for osc plugin 20:14:23 next one 20:14:34 #topic Update spec to add new resource type 20:14:45 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/272173/ 20:14:56 looks like I did what I could :) 20:14:59 simple thing left. just needs anothe +2 20:15:01 for this spec 20:15:05 another 20:15:11 yeah, thanks skraynev 20:15:22 hoping to get this in so I can get to coding 20:15:38 jreeves: you need two +2 20:15:48 yeah....'another' :) 20:15:48 because it's a specs repository 20:16:13 jreeves: two != second 20:16:26 ah 20:16:27 totally it should be equal 3 - +2 20:16:35 before it be approved 20:17:05 we use this approach, because it allows for more people take a look on spec 20:17:20 IMO this sounds like a good candidate for the spec-lite 20:17:29 not that you should redo anything 20:17:43 randallburt: first bird ? :) 20:18:10 first candidate == first bird :) 20:18:15 lol 20:18:16 sure 20:18:22 but I +2 anyway :D 20:18:48 jreeves: try to ping tiantian or shardy or therve tomorrow 20:18:56 ok 20:19:07 jreeves: or you can choose hard way and ask zaneb ;) 20:19:23 #topic Open Discussion 20:19:26 skraynev_: but going forward, I think new resources def fall in the spec-lite bucket 20:19:35 lol 20:19:38 -2 20:19:41 what is the spec? 20:19:53 zaneb: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/272173/ 20:19:54 new netron qos resources 20:19:59 ok....I'll do that moving forward. I think I asked in the #heat channel last week about that, but got no response...so this was a simple add 20:21:01 jdob: what patch did you want to ask to review? 20:21:07 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/239967/ 20:21:17 already had a +2 from shardy, but the RPC versoin moved again 20:21:35 jdob: oh. it's about multienviroments ? 20:21:43 and i have another change that will also move the RPC version so i'd like to get this one landed before I'm chasing two patches 20:22:24 ya, i still need to figure out why CI is failing on the impl behind multi-env, but it doesnt seem to happen all the time 20:22:32 jdob: I remember about it. it was in my today's plans, but I stopped before this one :) I promise to review it tomorrow (if you will not find someone else) 20:22:47 mostly just hoping to get it in before the RPC versoin moves again 20:22:50 awesome, thanks! :) 20:23:14 damned rpc version 20:23:38 jdob: where do these files get resolved or are they already assumed to be the file contents at this point? 20:23:57 they are in the files dict by the time they reach the server 20:23:59 jdob: early thanks. I will do it only tomorrow ;) 20:24:22 jdob: k, thanks for saving me digging 20:24:30 :) 20:24:32 jdob: I'll also try and take a look later this afternoon 20:24:37 very much appreciate it 20:24:41 pratikmallya: we just need to stop commit changes in rpc :) 20:25:17 do we have anything else for discussion? 20:25:22 skraynev_: you joke but should we really bump rpc version for *every* change or just when releases are cut 20:25:37 Oh. I forgot. We released 0.9.0 version for heatclient 20:25:40 hm... Another one 20:25:42 skraynev_: probably an old can of worms really 20:26:24 randallburt: as I remember therve found some useful link in documentation 20:26:36 Short notice: we have netgateway resource with property list of devices id, but have no gateway device resource 20:26:55 where rules about updating rpc version were clearly described 20:27:39 think, this is should be implemented, cause it's little odd have resource which have links on other resource, which is not in heat 20:27:41 randallburt: I need to dig in log history and then find it, if you want ? 20:28:16 end notice:) 20:28:18 prazumovsky: not really, but it will be good to have this resource in heat :) 20:28:20 skraynev_: I have no patches that affect rpc, so nbd if we keep on like we are. I'll complain when I have to rebase a 1000 times :) 20:29:03 prazumovsky: btw, as was mentioned above - use for this lite spec - as launchpad bug 20:29:28 yeah, i thought about that 20:29:39 prazumovsky: As I remember ramishra posted patch with guidelines about it on review 20:29:42 will be good practice:) 20:30:42 skraynev_: ok 20:30:45 randallburt: I understand it, but if you have changes in some common file - it's expected result 20:31:22 randallburt: we may add link on original doc to our developer guides. I think it will be useful 20:31:32 http://osdir.com/ml/openstack-dev/2016-01/msg01323.html 20:32:08 ya, i only really stumbled on it when i got a comment on my review about needing to bump it 20:32:17 skraynev_: sure 20:32:44 #action skraynev ask therve to post link on guide with description of rpc version changes or do it himself 20:32:56 ok. that's all from my side 20:34:22 So all other questions -> #heat 20:34:29 thank you all ;) 20:34:48 \o 20:34:57 #endmeeting