15:00:21 <vishalmanchanda> #startmeeting horizon 15:00:21 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Feb 15 15:00:21 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is vishalmanchanda. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:21 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:21 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'horizon' 15:01:36 <vishalmanchanda> Hi anyone around for horizon weekly meeting? 15:06:49 <amotoki> hi 15:06:49 <vishalmanchanda> tmazur: hi, do you have any topic to discuss? 15:07:05 <tmazur> hi 15:07:19 <vishalmanchanda> I can't see any topic added in our agenda etherpad. 15:07:54 <vishalmanchanda> I have 2 announcements for this week. 15:08:00 <vishalmanchanda> let's start the meeting 15:08:03 <tmazur> not to much to discuss from me. I'm working on backporting angular integration tests now, and it would be awesome if you can review the patches 15:08:21 <vishalmanchanda> tmazur: please drop the link here. 15:08:32 <tmazur> in open discussion then 15:08:34 <vishalmanchanda> #topic Notices 15:08:37 <vishalmanchanda> tmazur: cool 15:09:06 <vishalmanchanda> A casual reminder about schedule. 15:09:26 <vishalmanchanda> This week is R-5 week 15:11:28 <vishalmanchanda> Friday 17th is feature freeze, but we can still accept features for antelope if anyone have any feature with FEE. 15:12:35 <amotoki> vishalmanchanda: the feature freeze in the release milestone is for cycle-with-milestone. 15:12:44 <amotoki> vishalmanchanda: is it applied to horizon in the same way? 15:13:53 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: no as we follow cycle-with-intermediary model we can accept features till R-3 week i.e. Feb 27 - Mar 03 15:14:01 <amotoki> s/cycle-with-milestone/cycle-with-rc/ 15:14:17 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: but it is nice we can merge them asap. 15:14:38 <vishalmanchanda> moving to next announcement 15:14:50 <amotoki> vishalmanchanda: agree. do we have any pending ones with priority? 15:16:51 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: I am targeting "Floating IP Port Forwarding feature" for antelope release. 15:16:51 <vishalmanchanda> 15:17:22 <amotoki> is it ready already? 15:17:28 <vishalmanchanda> but honestly it is looking difficult for now as patch need too much work 15:17:36 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: CI is passing 15:18:12 <amotoki> I know what it is and am familiar with the faeture, but I am not sure I can review it promptly 15:18:18 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: Patch link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/868368 if you can help with review 15:19:13 <amotoki> ^ as commented above :p 15:19:45 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: ok, I can understand. will try my best and let see. 15:20:57 <vishalmanchanda> next announcement is, I have nominated myself for Horizon PTL for cycle. 15:21:46 <vishalmanchanda> Please let me know if anyone else is interested, I can help you with the process. 15:22:53 <vishalmanchanda> I have no other announcements to make, if anyone have any announcement to make. please go ahead 15:23:45 <vishalmanchanda> moving to next topic 15:24:15 <vishalmanchanda> #topic open-discussion 15:24:59 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: I need some help with "Floating IP Port Forwarding rule", if you can 15:25:26 <amotoki> vishalmanchanda: what kind of ? 15:25:36 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: actually I am trying to create a Floating IP Port Forwarding rule via CLI but hitting a error 15:25:54 <vishalmanchanda> Error msg "ResourceNotFound: 404: Client Error for url:" 15:26:15 <vishalmanchanda> here you can find command I am using https://paste.openstack.org/show/b2lh4ottMsljr5lElaeL/ 15:26:28 <amotoki> vishalmanchanda: it might be related to which ml2 driver and which extensions are enabled in neutron 15:26:38 <amotoki> let's discuss it separately 15:26:47 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: ok sure. 15:26:49 <amotoki> as I think it is related to your devstack config. 15:27:17 <amotoki> i have two topics in the open discussion section, but I think tmazur has a topic here. please go ahead first 15:27:28 <tmazur> Thanks amotoki 15:27:40 <tmazur> So I am working on backporting this https://review.opendev.org/q/Ib8a40f0adb0a46c9d646c6796a4242988eefa6e3 15:28:27 <tmazur> But from yoga and down the tests are failing with timeout. rdopiera made some improvements to speed up the tests, so I am backporting them too 15:28:47 <tmazur> That's a veeery long process, so I'd really appreciate some reviews 15:29:03 <tmazur> I posted the links into the etherpad 15:29:23 <amotoki> is the failure triggered just because of timeout? 15:29:54 <tmazur> Yes. Because for zed and later we have this https://review.opendev.org/q/Ie256118c0a84a8868393018b25b0aa049582a17d 15:30:37 <tmazur> I hope this one patch can help already. But there's more, about set up and tear down pagination tests, a few of them, and a few backports each 15:30:57 <tmazur> So I'd like to start with that one merged first ^^ 15:31:24 <amotoki> thanks. I am okay to backport the improvement of faster integration test by radomir because it has no side-effet. 15:32:27 <vishalmanchanda> tmazur: amotoki +1, we can backport setup and tear down pagination test to speed up process in stable branches. 15:32:40 <vishalmanchanda> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/847979 15:32:51 <vishalmanchanda> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/847985 15:32:57 <amotoki> after the change from radomir, the change is just that our integration tests fail fast. we still need to pass all tests, so it would have no negative result. 15:33:42 <tmazur> Yes, ideally we need all of them backported, because right now stable branches tests are pure pain 15:33:57 <amotoki> +1 15:34:01 <vishalmanchanda> +1. 15:34:25 <tmazur> So please take a look at this first https://review.opendev.org/q/Ie256118c0a84a8868393018b25b0aa049582a17d 15:34:48 <amotoki> thanks 15:35:05 <tmazur> And then I hope we can have more improvements way faster :) 15:35:20 <amotoki> totally agree 15:35:34 <tmazur> Thank you 15:35:46 <amotoki> tmazur: hopefully you can ping us one by one. it is not easy to track one by one :p 15:36:05 <tmazur> I will! 15:36:14 <amotoki> hehe :-) 15:36:39 <tmazur> That's it from me for today 15:37:02 <vishalmanchanda> tmazur: thanks for working on these backport. 15:37:23 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: your turn. 15:37:29 <amotoki> thanks 15:38:01 <amotoki> First one is about angularjs 1.8 support in stable branches 15:38:27 <amotoki> we have sevearl security repotrs about old angularJS version 15:38:44 <amotoki> perhaps this question si mainly for tmazur :p 15:38:57 <tmazur> Yeah, I got it :D 15:39:26 <amotoki> when we would like to supportr angularjs in older releases, I am not sure which patches we need to backport. 15:39:32 <tmazur> Well, the changes I've made are pretty simple, it's just lots of them. I can work on backporting them too. 15:39:34 <amotoki> I see several follow-up patches for AngularJS 1.8.2 support. 15:40:36 <tmazur> There is at least one more for containers and there probably will be more, since it was almost impossible to test everything after such a big change 15:41:06 <amotoki> no problem 15:41:08 <vishalmanchanda> https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:angular_updates 15:41:26 <tmazur> But if we find more issues after the update, we can just fix them and backport right away as well 15:41:39 <tmazur> The question is: how far do we want to backport the upgrade? 15:42:10 <amotoki> that's a good question and the biggest one 15:42:43 <amotoki> as far as I undersntad, your change works even with the older version of AngularJS 15:43:09 <amotoki> as the test passed before upgrading our u-c constraints 15:43:13 <tmazur> I tried to make it like this, yes. But I cannot be 100% sure 15:43:18 <amotoki> is my understanding right? 15:43:26 <tmazur> Yes 15:43:58 <amotoki> I know it is not easy to cever all but perhaps angularjs vulnerabilities are more important 15:44:13 <amotoki> and I think it is worth trying to backport them 15:45:12 <tmazur> Ok, let's do that 15:46:03 <tmazur> What about the corresponding patches to requirements and releases? 15:46:24 <tmazur> We need to make some changes for the stable branches there too, right? 15:46:45 <amotoki> regaridng the requirements, u-c continues to use the older version 15:47:01 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: how many stable branches you are targeting here for the backport? 15:47:28 <amotoki> vishalmanchanda: at least non-EM branches 15:48:04 <amotoki> if we succeed to backport them to those branches, it would be a good practice 15:48:22 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: ok, we should also do these backport in horizon-plugins in stable branches? 15:48:25 <amotoki> and if someone would liek to backport them to older branches, they can follow it 15:49:17 <amotoki> regarding plugins, i think it is up to plugins as long as we can keep it work with older versions of angularJS 15:49:46 <amotoki> does it make sense? 15:49:48 <tmazur> If we change u-c for horizon stable branches, does that mean all the plugins will have to upgrade too? 15:50:06 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: agreed. 15:50:21 <amotoki> tmazur: yes only if we updated u-c 15:50:34 <amotoki> s/updated/update/ 15:50:36 <tmazur> amotoki: do we want to update it? 15:50:38 <vishalmanchanda> no are not going to update u-c for stable branches. 15:50:53 <amotoki> tmazur: I don't think we need to update it 15:51:27 <amotoki> my main goal is to allow operators/distributors to use newer versions of AngularJS 15:51:38 <tmazur> So essentially we're just updating the code to fit the new angularjs, correct? 15:51:52 <amotoki> tmazur: I think so 15:51:54 <tmazur> amotoki: makes sense 15:52:25 <tmazur> It shouldn't be too complicated to do that then 15:52:38 <amotoki> yeah 15:53:48 <amotoki> thanks for the disucssion. I will try to backport the required patches. let's coordinate the backports somewhere (e.g. in the priority ehterpad) 15:54:22 <vishalmanchanda> I can also help in these backport. 15:54:59 <amotoki> can I move to another topic? it would be shorter than this 15:55:00 <tmazur> Yeah, let's use etherpad for this 15:55:12 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: go ahead. 15:55:44 <amotoki> another topic from is about https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1982676 15:56:04 <amotoki> The fix dropped success_url to handle the security issue, but it dropped a feature in stable branch which violates the stable policy in general. 15:56:53 <amotoki> there is a discussion to publish a security note in the bug. 15:57:01 <amotoki> I see a solution which allows us to keep the feature with the required security fix 15:57:16 <vishalmanchanda> which feature it drop? 15:58:17 <amotoki> vishalmanchanda: success_url dropped there was introeudced to allow to visit some snapshot form directly 15:58:25 <amotoki> but it is impossible now 15:59:05 <amotoki> thatt's the reason I think it is backward-incompat 16:00:29 <amotoki> vishalmanchanda: does it answer to your question? 16:01:03 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: go ahead, I was trying to test it in my env. 16:01:53 <vishalmanchanda> what's your solution? 16:01:58 <amotoki> I think we can recover the functionality by defining another form which inherits the existing one 16:02:48 <amotoki> but I am not sure how fast we need to land such kind of solution in my mind 16:03:10 <amotoki> in the bug report, publisiing a security note is discussed 16:04:38 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: I am fine with that solution and we can quickly test and merge it 16:04:45 <vishalmanchanda> even for the stable branches. 16:05:28 <amotoki> okay. let me propose a solution in my mind and let's see how it goes 16:05:46 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: ok, thanks. 16:06:03 <amotoki> I did not notice it as I was not avaiable for reviews when it landed. 16:06:28 <amotoki> and recently I noticed it 16:06:57 <amotoki> that's all from me today 16:07:19 <vishalmanchanda> Does anyone have any other topic to discuss? 16:08:02 <tmazur> nothing from me 16:08:11 <vishalmanchanda> I have one more update, I have started the process to move xstatic-angular-fileupload under horizon deliverables. 16:08:20 <vishalmanchanda> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/873845 16:09:01 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: tmazur : Also Could you please revote on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/xstatic-font-awesome/+/872106 16:09:24 <vishalmanchanda> If no other topic to discuss, let's end this meeting. 16:09:53 <amotoki> vishalmanchanda: thanks. it would help reviewers if you mention which step you follow like step 2 16:09:53 <vishalmanchanda> Thanks everyone for joining and your contributions. 16:10:17 <vishalmanchanda> amotoki: sure. 16:10:22 <amotoki> * in the project team guide 16:10:36 <vishalmanchanda> #endmeeting