12:01:08 #startmeeting horizondrivers 12:01:09 Meeting started Wed Oct 21 12:01:08 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is david-lyle. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:01:10 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 12:01:12 The meeting name has been set to 'horizondrivers' 12:01:44 anyone driving? 12:01:52 o/ 12:01:56 \o 12:02:19 also robcresswell said that he will soon after beginning of the meeting 12:02:53 o/ 12:03:51 Only general item 12:04:15 #link http://mitakadesignsummit.sched.org/overview/type/horizon 12:04:29 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Design_Summit/Mitaka/Etherpads#Horizon 12:04:44 for summit stuff 12:06:45 any pressing bps people want to discuss, or should I just pull from the back of the deck? 12:07:09 I don't have any priority blueprints today 12:07:22 * doug-fish still looking at the schedule 12:07:29 neither do I 12:07:56 ok, the zaqar-ui bp should wait until the summit 12:08:29 Sorry for lateness 12:08:38 #topic https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/volume-type-access 12:08:43 david-lyle, is tests discussion going to happen on the contributors meetup? 12:08:43 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/volume-type-access 12:09:02 tsufiev: it sure can 12:09:28 ok, that's good ) 12:09:36 add things you'd like to discuss on the etherpad 12:09:48 for the meetup 12:10:12 ack 12:11:34 for the bp seems like one piece was overlap otherwise just rounding out API coverage 12:11:48 seems that this blueprint is a duplicate of https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/volume-type-description is it? 12:12:06 just the first of 3 patches 12:12:15 the next two alter access 12:12:36 IIUC more like images 12:12:39 ah, ok 12:13:05 Perhaps just leave a comment asking the author to fill it out more 12:13:34 robcresswell: the code is all up already 12:13:59 the commit messages are a bit more informative, a bit 12:14:11 :( 12:14:40 second one is better 12:14:56 I dislike trawling code to understand what features have been added, but we shouldnt be blocking on it. "red tape" etc. 12:15:17 I'm going to approve, seems like new basic functionality we should support 12:15:22 Looks like its useful functionality 12:15:26 agreed ^^ 12:15:37 robcresswell: feel free in the reviews to ask for a more complete commit message 12:16:03 #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/volume-type-access approved 12:16:10 Yes, I think so for the first patch. 12:16:32 the first of 3 is abandoned 12:16:42 the 2nd could use a better commit message 12:16:55 I'm going to skip ceilo bp for now too 12:17:08 Ya, I meant of the two active patches. 12:17:23 there will be a ceilo fishbowl where we'll learn more 12:17:24 I added a couple of comments to the whiteboard on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/volume-type-access 12:18:28 #topic https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/uuid-integration-tests 12:18:38 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/uuid-integration-tests 12:18:53 seems logical and I don't see a reason to block 12:19:23 Yeah, it doesn't really need any context, the linked bp explains enough. 12:19:28 yes, I think it won't hurt 12:19:41 we could make the integration tests pluggable to tempest at some point 12:19:41 +1 for approval 12:19:47 I like the assumption that we'll have as many tests as in Tempest :) 12:20:24 david-lyle: FWIW I don't think our Horizon tests will _ever_ go into Tempest 12:20:47 doug-fish: not in tempest, a plugin to tempest 12:20:57 in fact our current test will be doing the same 12:21:28 I wasn't aware of that - version-less-ness of tempest isn't a concern? 12:21:42 david-lyle, so, are going to move tests out of horizon repo? 12:21:45 is there a blueprint for this effort? 12:21:56 hold up 12:22:03 we have one test in tempest 12:22:18 we would move that scenario into the horizon repo 12:22:28 to work as a plugin to tempest 12:22:56 the when we run the gate jobs, our plugin is loaded into tempest 12:23:23 there is currently no point to have the horizon test scenario run for nova and neutron patches 12:23:39 but random failures can block their patches 12:23:51 more big tent stuff 12:24:01 #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/uuid-integration-tests approved 12:24:39 hm... still there is a possibility that changes in nova/neutron/cinder/keystone will break horizon 12:24:56 I'm reading here: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/tempest/plugin.html (Didn't know this existed) 12:25:02 something we might to consider in future 12:25:04 tsufiev: only keystone 12:25:12 we only test login 12:25:27 and none of the clients off master, only released versions 12:25:34 well, there was a recent change in cinder quotas that broke some of Horizon buttons 12:25:52 tsufiev: that wasn't caught by our login scenario 12:26:00 yes, that's true 12:26:25 I meant integration tests breaking from changes in other openstack components 12:26:38 for which projects our plugin gets loaded is a matter for later debate 12:26:50 tsufiev: but they only run on horizon jobs 12:26:52 do we have a plugin yet? 12:26:56 they are not in tempest 12:27:03 doug-fish: no, it's on my todo list 12:27:06 :-0 12:27:09 :-) 12:27:17 got it 12:27:19 maybe we can do it at the meetup on Friday 12:27:22 david-lyle, should we make horizon integration tests be a tempest plugin then? 12:27:29 then more than one person understands it 12:27:30 :) 12:27:55 tsufiev: perhaps 12:27:57 tsufiev: maybe it's a collection of plugins, so we can run the Horizon Cinder tests with cinder, etc 12:28:02 they need to be highly stable 12:28:15 I'm working on that :) 12:28:26 tsufiev: I'm well aware and grateful 12:28:30 :D 12:28:33 :D 12:28:41 #topic https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/update-jasmine 12:28:41 david-lyle: it sounds like a good thing to do on Friday 12:28:54 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/update-jasmine 12:28:56 is this done? 12:29:34 it doesn't look done to me 12:29:38 requirements indicate we're using it 12:29:48 the upgrade has happened, but no changes to the tests 12:30:14 but if we're using it, what changes are required? 12:30:51 I'm looking at the patches references in the blueprint https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135619/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/133175/ 12:31:00 I don't have a full understanding here 12:31:04 oh, I auto-abandoned those patches 12:31:18 just saw they were abandoned 12:31:22 sure - not sure that was wrong 12:31:25 https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/package.json#L12 12:31:29 Jasmine is on 2.2.0 12:31:38 So the title at least, has been achieved 12:31:42 :-) 12:31:49 so perhaps there are optimizations this allows 12:32:06 yeah, that's what I get from the 2nd sentence 12:32:56 Maybe it should be marked done anyway? It's half done and I think no further work is planned 12:33:18 another bp can take on the updating if still desired 12:33:26 +1 12:34:19 #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/update-jasmine implemented 12:35:17 #topic https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/task-event-history 12:35:19 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/task-event-history 12:36:14 I don't believe there is API support for this 12:36:23 agreed 12:36:27 we have something for nova 12:36:37 usage? 12:36:44 no actions tab 12:36:51 oh, yes, I see 12:37:10 this bp is too broad and ill defined to be useful IMO 12:37:17 agreed 12:38:33 agreed 12:39:15 #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/task-event-history obsolete 12:39:20 left comment 12:39:35 oops, me too 12:39:51 #topic https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/session-token-improvement 12:41:11 I'm all for this 12:42:06 smaller session size is a high priority 12:42:45 Thats a nice bp. 12:42:50 yeah, this is what Lin shared at the last summit I think 12:43:05 yeah, the formal write up part 12:44:03 any negative votes? 12:44:29 nope. +1 12:44:37 #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/session-token-improvement approved 12:44:38 I suspect it may increase response time a bit (cache retrieval), but only a bit 12:45:15 +1 12:46:51 #topic https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/select-all-checkbox-object-containers 12:46:55 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/select-all-checkbox-object-containers 12:47:16 I have no concerns with this other than the bp is 7 months old and no code 12:47:47 it could almost be treated as a bug rather than a bp 12:48:32 merely adding a select-all 12:48:40 * robcresswell mumbles something about small bugs have well defined bps, and very complex bps having no content. 12:48:42 if pagination will be implemented for Object Storage (we have such plans for Mitaka), this feature won't have much usefulness 12:48:52 This looks more like a bug to me 12:48:57 because Select All works only within a page 12:49:01 AFAIK 12:49:28 right, but all the other paginated tables have select-all 12:49:44 what I would really prefer is a rewrite of the entire view 12:49:52 that would be a good bp 12:49:58 yes, it'd be good in terms of UX consistency, I agree 12:50:06 * tsufiev makes a mental note 12:50:25 I have a feeling that select-all is more complicated to implement than it's worth 12:51:25 just to be clear - select-all means select-page, right? 12:51:35 doug-fish: yes 12:51:43 yes 12:51:53 ok great 12:52:31 now I'm lost 12:54:26 #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/select-all-checkbox-object-containers approved 12:54:54 may need to culled later pending progress 12:56:35 #topic https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/openstack-dashboard-logs 12:56:39 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/openstack-dashboard-logs 12:57:10 there is no openstack path to get to this. I think culling this makes sense 12:57:24 +1 12:57:28 Agreed 12:57:39 Also a year old, no code. 12:58:25 +1. I would rather mention here some inconsistencies between different openstack clients inside apache/dashboard log, but that's a topic for Logging group 12:59:14 #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/openstack-dashboard-logs obsolete 12:59:19 (when Horizon is slow and someone switches on total debug in logs, it's not very convenient to parse the results) 12:59:19 I added a note 12:59:49 for admin it would be possible to show the horizon server log 13:00:24 but that would be a different bp 13:00:41 plus clustering? 13:00:45 how to do that? 13:01:05 plus clustering? 13:01:15 sorry, it's early to use all of the words 13:01:33 I think Doug meant what if we have several Apache servers? 13:01:34 logging in a more difficult problem if there are multiple clustered instances of Horizon running 13:01:45 *is 13:01:48 *sigh* 13:01:50 nevermind. 13:02:01 it's a different blueprint. 13:02:22 so in production, I've found the hardest part was figuring out which server you were connected to to view the log 13:02:40 * tsufiev imagines looking through a centralized log being logged itself, thus resulting in a positive feedback :) 13:02:40 in this case, you wouldn't have to make that determination 13:02:59 as long as you're able to reproduce the error 13:03:10 and as long as all of your requests go to the same server 13:03:26 david-lyle, I usually tailf as many logs as I have Apache instances and see which changes :) 13:04:00 if you are getting loadbalanced that often I think there's something else wrong 13:04:11 we're at time 13:04:19 Thanks everyone for your time. 13:04:23 #endmeeting