16:00:53 <eglute> #startmeeting interopwg
16:00:53 <openstack> Meeting started Wed May 24 16:00:53 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is eglute. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:55 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:58 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'interopwg'
16:01:06 <eglute> #topic agenda
16:01:09 <eglute> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropVertigo.1
16:01:34 <eglute> Hello Everyone, please update/add to the agenda as needed
16:01:35 <mrhillsman> o/
16:01:57 <hogepodge> o/
16:02:15 * eglute waves
16:02:20 <luzC> o/
16:02:31 <mguiney> o/
16:02:33 <eglute> anyone else here for interop meeting on this fine day?
16:02:59 <eglute> glad to see luzC back :)
16:03:09 <mrhillsman> hey luzC!
16:03:25 <luzC> hey glad to be back :)
16:03:34 <eglute> #topic 2017.08 Guideline
16:03:47 <eglute> thanks everyone that helped with scoring
16:03:59 <eglute> keystone is the only outstanding patch left,
16:04:08 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456774/
16:04:33 <eglute> thanks luzC and mguiney for working on it
16:04:50 <luzC> I submitted a new patch a minute ago, it contain some changes to designated sections (to remove v2.0 api)...
16:05:15 <luzC> had a couple of questions about the scoring
16:05:30 <eglute> thank you luzC
16:05:54 <eglute> i see you added deprecated, but i think it also needs to be higher up
16:06:14 <eglute> but i need to do a full review after the meeting
16:06:24 <luzC> I noticed several public clouds are using keystone v3 api but not sure if that includes the capability validate token... I assume it include it hence I mark it as widely deployed
16:07:25 <eglute> it still didnt seem to raise the score high enough?
16:07:42 <luzC> no yet
16:08:02 <luzC> but for "play well with others" - "Discoverable" Capability being tested is Service Discoverable
16:08:11 <luzC> I marked it as zero
16:08:20 <eglute> good notes though, good to have it as part of scoring
16:08:21 <luzC> since I didn't know how to verify that
16:08:29 <zhipeng_> o/
16:09:17 <eglute> luzC there is api right
16:09:35 <luzC> eglute yes
16:09:58 <eglute> then i think that means it is discoverable
16:10:07 <eglute> hogepodge correct me if i am wrong
16:11:37 <eglute> #link: https://github.com/openstack/interop/blob/master/doc/source/process/CoreCriteria.rst#plays-well-with-others
16:12:53 <eglute> so if it can be found and is documented, i think it can be marked as 1
16:13:14 <luzC> if I changed that to 1 the score will change to 74* which I think is high, anyway we still need to wait for tempest test case available (mguiney thanks for the patch )
16:13:40 <eglute> yeah, if still no test, then we cannot add it
16:13:50 <luzC> ok
16:14:05 <eglute> but might be worth changing it, and noting that no test, therefore wont add
16:14:09 <luzC> I'll add a note
16:14:13 <eglute> thank you luzC!
16:14:19 <eglute> anything else on keystone?
16:14:40 <eglute> for those that joined late, here is link to the agenda: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropVertigo.1
16:14:55 <eglute> #topic Add aliases for test_volumes_list
16:15:01 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454844/
16:15:50 <eglute> this been in -1 workflow for a while
16:17:04 <eglute> it seems important...
16:17:17 <zhipeng_> i've got another patch that also deals with the aliasing ...
16:17:41 <eglute> zhipeng_ i think i have it on the agenda as well! is it same tests?
16:17:54 <zhipeng_> i think there are overlaps
16:18:12 <zhipeng_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462860/
16:18:12 <eglute> luzC thank you for reviewing this patch. any chance you could follow up with Ken'ichi Ohmichi on it?
16:18:21 <zhipeng_> mine was even bigger ...
16:18:41 <eglute> zhipeng_ yes, i have it on the agenda for today :)
16:18:59 <zhipeng_> :)
16:19:53 <luzC> eglute yes
16:19:55 <luzC> I'll
16:19:58 <eglute> thank you luzC!!
16:20:25 <eglute> #action luzC to follow up on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454844/
16:20:52 <eglute> #topic Create tools to increase ease of scoring
16:20:53 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/458716/
16:20:59 <eglute> everyone, please review-- if no other comments, i will merge it this week
16:21:44 <eglute> thank you mguiney :)
16:22:07 <mguiney> thank you all for taking a look!
16:22:58 <eglute> if no other comments on this patch, we can move forward :)
16:23:03 <eglute> today is a patchy day :D
16:23:10 <eglute> #topic Add Aliases For VolumeV2 Test Cases Part 1
16:23:22 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462860/
16:23:51 <eglute> looks like this one has tests that would have multiple aliases?
16:23:59 <eglute> for a single tests?
16:24:24 <zhipeng_> yes I think it has the same goal with the test-volume-list patch
16:24:33 <zhipeng_> or at least was brought up for the same reason
16:24:51 <zhipeng_> that tempest adopt cinder v3 test cases
16:25:13 <zhipeng_> the patch's purpose is to add aliases for the VolumeV2 test cases in the guideline
16:25:38 <zhipeng_> but one of the major problem here is that, in reply yo luzC's review comment
16:25:54 <zhipeng_> I found CI will report error if there is more than one alias
16:26:19 <zhipeng_> luzC pointed out that there are previous aliases that should be maintained
16:26:23 <eglute> i think our schema doesnt allow for multiple aliases
16:26:31 <zhipeng_> yep
16:27:27 <zhipeng_> so if luzC could contact Ken'ichi to see if my patch could be a superset of his previous one
16:27:32 <zhipeng_> then we could just work on this one
16:27:39 <eglute> that would work!
16:27:51 <eglute> but i think we will still have issue of multiple aliases
16:28:06 <eglute> we can change the schema, but then refstack needs to coordinate as well
16:28:09 <zhipeng_> and we need another patch to deal with all the volume-v3 related aliases
16:28:37 <zhipeng_> yes, my current proposal is to remove the old ones, since they are also V2 and could not be found
16:30:03 <eglute> so, just to be clear- same test changed names multiple times?
16:30:29 <luzC> I didn't know about the schema, I guess we could remove the old aliases
16:31:09 <eglute> i wonder if you should update the schame
16:31:17 <eglute> schema
16:31:23 <luzC> eglute yes, test cases changed names 2 times...
16:31:57 <eglute> we need updated schema then. anybody interested in updating schema?
16:32:20 <luzC> eglute yes, I can take a look
16:32:52 <eglute> luzC that would be great.
16:32:54 <eglute> thank you!
16:32:55 <eglute> also, can you coordinate with refstack?
16:33:17 <eglute> #action luzC to update schema and work with refstack on the change
16:33:24 * eglute very happy luzC is back
16:35:35 <eglute> zhipengh[m] can you work with luzC and update the patch to contain two test names?
16:35:44 * kgarloff agrees with eglute :-)
16:36:33 * eglute wonders if [m] in zhipengh[m] name means he is away
16:36:51 <Rockyg> good question
16:37:13 <eglute> any other comments on this patch?
16:37:21 <zhipeng_> sorry was disconnected ...
16:37:29 <Rockyg> just repeat the request :)
16:37:52 <eglute> zhipeng_ no worries
16:38:02 <eglute> zhipeng_ can you work with luzC and update the patch to contain two test names?
16:38:13 <zhipeng_> eglute did we have a recommendation for the short term alias solution?
16:38:27 <zhipeng_> yes I will work with her :)
16:39:07 <eglute> zhipeng_ i think it depends how quickly we can get schema updated. is this currently stopping you from certifying?
16:39:33 <zhipeng_> yes if we use the more updated tempest test suite
16:39:40 <zhipeng_> then we willl hit with error
16:40:12 <eglute> how quickly do you need to certify?
16:42:12 <zhipeng_> i think before Sep should be fine :)
16:42:29 <zhipeng_> but like it to be done as fast as possible
16:42:35 <eglute> zhipeng_ i think we can get this resolved before then for sure
16:42:41 <eglute> i will work with luzC on the schema
16:42:47 <zhipeng_> coz I'm not sure if other companies got urgent need
16:42:54 <zhipeng_> great ! :)
16:42:57 <kgarloff> zhipeng_: I think we do
16:43:07 <luzC> :)
16:43:44 <kgarloff> sitting on old 16.01 feels so bad :-(
16:43:51 <eglute> anything else on this patch?
16:43:56 <eglute> i agree, we need to update
16:44:00 <eglute> and fast
16:44:27 <luzC> agree
16:45:00 <eglute> ok, thank you luzC and zhipeng_ for your work on this patch!
16:45:21 <eglute> #topic Remove test_delete_active_server
16:45:33 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/463944/
16:46:18 <eglute> looks like one of the tests is being removed, so json needs to be updated
16:46:28 <eglute> if everyone could please review that patch, that would be great
16:48:03 <eglute> #topic Deprecate volume-v2/v3-attach-detach capability
16:48:21 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462811/
16:48:37 <zhipeng_> i guess i'm waiting for matt to response to luzC's comment :)
16:49:22 <eglute> zhipeng_ we can give him a few days :)
16:49:42 <luzC> patch looks good to me, just wanted to pick Matt's brain look into future cinder direction
16:50:06 <kgarloff> eglute: This is the one where nova calls the cinder interface internally but the test tests for the direct accessibility?
16:50:18 <eglute> luzC i agree, i think based on the discussion we can deprecate it
16:50:45 <eglute> kgarloff: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/interop-wg/2017-April/000116.html
16:50:45 <zhipeng_> kgarloff yes
16:51:58 <eglute> any other comments on this patch?
16:51:59 <kgarloff> +1
16:52:13 <eglute> i think once matt replies, it can go forward
16:52:25 <smcginnis> I can comment.
16:52:32 <eglute> thank you smcginnis
16:52:33 <smcginnis> It is really an internal call between nova and cinder
16:52:44 <smcginnis> So it's not expected to be used by someone externally.
16:52:58 <smcginnis> So really they never should have been included.
16:53:02 <zhipeng_> txh smcginnis
16:53:08 <eglute> smcginnis if you could also comment on the patch, that would be helpful :)
16:53:17 <smcginnis> eglute: Will do, thanks!
16:53:26 <eglute> thanks smcginnis !
16:53:49 * kgarloff thanks smcginnis
16:53:53 <eglute> #topic Remove duplicated testcase test_get_private_image
16:53:58 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454489/
16:54:26 <eglute> more removed tests
16:54:42 <eglute> if everyone could review and comment, that would be helpful!
16:54:49 <eglute> this one looks straightforward to me
16:55:22 <eglute> any comments?
16:55:43 <eglute> #topic Flagging Regarding Public Cloud Subnet
16:55:46 <eglute> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460372/
16:57:00 <eglute> any comments on this patch? only tests are being flagged, not capabilities
16:58:02 <eglute> that capability has a lot of tests, so i think this is a reasonable request
16:58:22 <kgarloff> multiple subnets is unusual indeed
16:58:49 <zhipeng_> :)
17:00:10 <hogepodge> kgarloff: it's necessary for mixing ipv4 and ipv6 apparently, which isn't unheard of
17:00:16 <eglute> if everyone could comment on the patch, that would be helpful!
17:00:36 <kgarloff> hogepodge: That sounds like a good reason
17:01:17 <kgarloff> I was referring to multiple ipv4 subnets in one l2 net which cna be done, but is messy ...
17:01:25 <eglute> might be that a test needs re-writing?
17:01:30 <hogepodge> yeah, that doesn't make a lot of sense
17:01:34 <mriedem> dansmith:
17:01:36 <mriedem> ?
17:02:04 <eglute> the name implies it only adds security groups to a port, which sounds like a good thing to test
17:03:37 <kgarloff> eglute: so we need the neutron tempest folks to clean up the test case to do what it suggests it does?
17:03:49 <eglute> kgarloff perhaps
17:04:01 <eglute> i have not looked at the test itself
17:04:16 <eglute> or we may need to find a new test that does what this one implies
17:04:31 <eglute> kgarloff is this something you would have time to research?
17:04:52 <eglute> oh we are passed time
17:04:52 <hogepodge> we're over time
17:04:53 <eglute> i am so sorry everyone
17:05:00 <eglute> thanks everyone!!!
17:05:03 <eglute> #endmeeting