15:02:12 <e0ne> #startmeeting horizon
15:02:13 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jan  9 15:02:12 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is e0ne. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:14 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:02:16 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'horizon'
15:02:20 <rdopiera> o/
15:02:34 <e0ne> rdopiera: hi
15:02:39 <jakub> #info
15:02:44 <vishalmanchanda> 0/
15:02:47 <e0ne> amotoki: hi. are you around?
15:02:57 <amotoki> hi
15:03:21 <e0ne> great. looks like we're OK to start today
15:03:43 <e0ne> I hope, you enjoyed Christmas and New Year holidays
15:03:52 <jakub> hello all
15:04:02 <e0ne> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Horizon#Agenda_for_Next_Meeting
15:04:40 <e0ne> #topic Notices
15:05:12 <e0ne> OpenStack Summit  CFP is  open until Wednesday, January 23 at 11:59pm PT.
15:05:37 <e0ne> don't forget to submit a talk proposal if you're going to do it
15:06:36 <e0ne> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/denver-2019/call-for-presentations/
15:07:24 <e0ne> OpenStack PTG will be in the same location right after the summit
15:07:27 <e0ne> #link https://www.openstack.org/ptg
15:07:55 <e0ne> amotoki, rdopiera: are we OK to have one day for the PTG?
15:08:19 <rdopiera> e0ne: I can't come anywyas, so it's fine by me
15:08:28 <e0ne> rdopiera: :(
15:09:18 <e0ne> I have to answer until January 20th if we want to get some room for PTG discussions
15:10:58 <e0ne> I hope, we'll have some good discussions there
15:11:11 <e0ne> amotoki: are you going to attend the Summit and PTG?
15:13:12 <amotoki> I haven't decided and got approved yet, but i hope so
15:13:49 <e0ne> I didn't get an approval too, but I have some time for it
15:14:39 <e0ne> I'll sent a note to organizers that we're going to attend it. I think we can cancel if if nobody goes
15:15:05 <amotoki> sounds good
15:15:20 <e0ne> #topic New ceilometer-dashboard repository
15:15:42 <e0ne> jakub: could you please share with us what are you proposing?
15:17:22 <e0ne> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/619235/
15:17:29 <e0ne> #link https://bitbucket.org/ultimumtechnologies/ceilometer-dashboard/src
15:18:57 <e0ne> so Telemetry team are going to create own plugin for Horizon
15:19:00 <e0ne> it's great
15:19:03 <amotoki> It seems we need a discussion on naming per Doug's comment
15:19:10 <jakub> We would like to add a plugin to horizon for ceilometer. Ceilometer stores data in gnocchi and these data can be displayed in Grafana. But if you want to see it you have to login to Grafana and create some basic structure. And this is the point, our hoziron plugin creates this structure via a button and also can redirect you to the grafana dashboar without need of additional authentication.
15:20:20 <jakub> We would like to get the code under Openstack.
15:21:00 <jakub> Regarding naming - as I just described above, it is not a grafana plugin, therefore there is no need to rename the repository
15:21:19 <amotoki> A dashboard for telemetry is a missing point for a long time :)
15:21:53 <amotoki> jakub: I see. AFAIU, it is a horizon plugin which leverages/redirects to grafana UI
15:22:09 <amotoki> is it right?
15:22:24 <jakub> basically yes
15:22:48 <jakub> but not only
15:23:26 <amotoki> ack
15:23:44 <amotoki> from the governance perspective, we need an ack from the telemetry PTL
15:23:52 <e0ne> amotoki: +1
15:24:35 <amotoki> we use plugin model now. this means dashboard supports for non-core features are hosted by corresponding projects.
15:24:58 <amotoki> do we see any blocking issue from horizon perspective?
15:25:10 <e0ne> nothing I'm familiar with
15:25:57 <amotoki> I haven't followed comments/discussions in the proposed review yet. I will look thru it tomorrow.
15:25:58 <e0ne> jakub asked me if horizon team wants to share responsibility to maintain this plugin
15:26:23 <e0ne> in general, we don't have capacity to maintain plugins too
15:27:23 <e0ne> but I think it's reasonable if horizon team will have +2 on plugins for some emergency cases .e.g. if gate is blocked by some horizon or dependency changes
15:27:41 <e0ne> IMO, that's all we can do
15:27:42 <amotoki> does "share" mean that both the telemetry and horizon teams co-maintain it?
15:28:23 <jakub> e0ne: yes I have asked you because PTL of Telemetry did not want to share the responsibility
15:28:57 <e0ne> jakub: it's up to your team
15:28:59 <amotoki> jakub: does it mean that the telemetry team cannot host it?
15:29:35 <jakub> just a note, I am not member of Telemetry team
15:29:40 <amotoki> jakub: or would the telemetry team like to maintain it by themselves?
15:30:14 <amotoki> "share" means some team shares some reponsibility with another team
15:30:22 <amotoki> so I am a bit confused with the statement.
15:30:43 <jakub> amotoki: yes, AFAIK they do not want to host it
15:30:49 <e0ne> hm...
15:30:55 <e0ne> jakub: so who will maintain it?
15:31:23 <jakub> our company, if is that what you are asking
15:32:45 <e0ne> I'm confused now
15:32:47 <amotoki> this sounds a governance discussion. we need to consider both maintenance bandwidth and which project can host it.
15:32:58 <e0ne> amotoki: +1
15:33:31 <amotoki> re: the maintenance bandwidth, jakub's company can provide it (at least for now)
15:33:36 <jakub> the question is also whether it needs to be official or unofficial
15:33:48 <jakub> if there is any difference
15:34:08 <amotoki> re: the project governance there are several choces: horizon official , telemetry official and unofficial
15:35:04 <amotoki> re: the diffrence between offical vs unofficial, at least contributors to official projects get ATC status
15:35:45 <amotoki> in addition, "official" would be a good reason to contribute such project more compared to "unofficial" ones.
15:36:42 <e0ne> it would be good it telemetry project can host it
15:37:03 <amotoki> I think it is better to raise this to TC with what we discussed so far.
15:37:08 <e0ne> I'm not sure that we should host it under Horizon umbrella
15:37:46 <amotoki> including the fact that the telemetry PTL would like not to host it (in personal conversation?)
15:38:04 <jakub> re: yes, via email
15:38:05 <amotoki> AFAIK, this is the first case that any project would like not to host its dashboard.
15:38:15 <e0ne> amotoki: :(
15:38:34 <jakub> we do not insist on the official.. originaly I went unofficial but as you can see in the change request Andreas Jaeger wanted me to create it under governance so that is why I am here now
15:39:07 <jakub> we simply wanted to be somehow under openstack not necessarily official
15:39:36 <amotoki> jakub: yeah, generally speaking it is a good suggestion, but the situation seems a bit complicated..... we didn't expect it :(
15:39:50 <jakub> amotoki: me neither :)
15:39:58 <amotoki> so what is the next step?
15:40:19 <jakub> that is what I would like to know as well
15:40:41 <amotoki> I see two ways: (1) raise this situation to TC, or (2) create a repo as unofficial project.
15:41:27 <jakub> how can I do the (2) ?
15:42:11 <amotoki> jakub: it is simple. what we need to do is to send a mail explaining the current situation to openstack-discuss ML with [tc] tag.
15:42:30 <e0ne> jakub: here is some manual https://docs.openstack.org/infra/system-config/unofficial_project_hosting.html
15:43:02 <amotoki> you can also join TC meetings to discuss it but I believe sending a mail to the ML is a good first step
15:43:03 <jakub> amotoki: what is ML?
15:43:12 <jakub> I see now
15:43:12 <amotoki> jakub: openstack-discuss ML
15:43:14 <e0ne> jakub: mailing list
15:43:28 <jakub> ok then, I will do that
15:43:52 <amotoki> aha, ML was a common abbrev of mailing list, but it now means machine learning :)
15:45:03 <amotoki> jakub: when you send a mail, could you iinclude "[tc][telemetry][horizon]" in the subject?
15:45:10 <amotoki> this is what I mean by "tag".
15:45:20 <jakub> sure, I can
15:45:53 <amotoki> we can support the discussion then.
15:46:12 <jakub> ok, thank you
15:46:34 <e0ne> jakub: thanks for raising this topic
15:47:24 <e0ne> can we move forward? I've got one more topic to discuss
15:47:26 <jakub> thanks
15:48:06 <e0ne> #topic unused XStatic-* packages
15:48:44 <e0ne> we've got few xstatic-* libraries which we don't use in Horizon and they were not released at all
15:48:48 <e0ne> e.g. https://github.com/openstack/xstatic-angular-ui-router
15:49:31 <e0ne> do we want to drop them from horizon deliverables?
15:50:05 <e0ne> such repos were created about two years ago and we still don't use them
15:50:15 <amotoki> I am okay to drop them unless any horizon plugins depend on it
15:50:39 <amotoki> s/it/them/
15:51:00 <e0ne> amotoki: I don't think somebody uses them because we don't have any releases
15:51:10 <e0ne> but I'll double check before removing them
15:51:13 <amotoki> yeah, agree
15:51:38 <e0ne> that's all from me today
15:51:44 <e0ne> #topic Open Discussion
15:51:54 <amotoki> I have one topic to discuss.
15:51:58 <amotoki> it is about error reporting
15:52:27 <amotoki> can I go?
15:53:15 <e0ne> sure
15:53:24 <e0ne> we've got 7 minutes more
15:53:25 <amotoki> horizon now catches an exception from back-end services and creates error messages in our code.
15:53:51 <amotoki> it hides the detail and we receive many bug reports on insufficient messages.
15:54:24 <amotoki> AFAIK, it is done from two reasons.
15:54:43 <amotoki> the one is to hide too *more detail* from back-end services like UUID
15:55:03 <amotoki> the other is for translation. we cannot translate messages from back-end services.
15:55:04 <e0ne> I'm OK to show exception messages from the APIs but not full tracebacks
15:55:29 <amotoki> however, I think detail information is more important than the above two reasons.
15:55:57 <amotoki> my proposal is to include exception strings to error messages.
15:56:13 <amotoki> e0ne: yeah, it is same as mine
15:56:48 <e0ne> I'm glad to be on the same page with the rest of the team
15:57:25 <amotoki> what in my mind is like this https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/dashboards/project/networks/workflows.py#L499-L502
15:58:26 <amotoki> at least some leading messages can be translated :)
15:58:57 <e0ne> :)
15:59:39 <amotoki> i think we can do this gradually
16:00:24 <amotoki> that's all from me.
16:00:30 <e0ne> +1
16:00:45 <e0ne> thanks for the participation! see you next week
16:00:52 <e0ne> #endmeeting