15:02:06 <TheJulia> #startmeeting ironic
15:02:06 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Mon Jun 30 15:02:06 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is TheJulia. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:06 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:02:06 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'ironic'
15:02:07 <TheJulia> o/
15:02:09 <rpittau> o/
15:02:10 <TheJulia> Good morning everyone!
15:02:21 <cid> o/
15:02:41 <TheJulia> #topic Announcements / Reminders
15:02:44 <TheJulia> #undo
15:02:44 <opendevmeet> Removing item from minutes: #topic Announcements / Reminders
15:02:52 <TheJulia> Our meeting agenda can be found on the wiki.
15:02:53 <TheJulia> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic#Agenda_for_June_30.2C_2025
15:02:56 <TheJulia> #topic Announcements / Reminders
15:03:11 <TheJulia> As a general reminder, please spend time and review ironic-week-prio items.
15:03:21 <TheJulia> #link https://tinyurl.com/ironic-weekly-prio-dash
15:03:55 <TheJulia> As a reminder, according to the release schedule, we're in week R-13.
15:03:58 <TheJulia> #link https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html
15:04:32 <TheJulia> Does anyone have anything to announce or remind us of?
15:04:54 <rpittau> time flies?
15:04:58 <TheJulia> It does!
15:05:02 <fungi> forum session proposal deadline?
15:05:21 <TheJulia> fungi: no idea on the date, if you have it and a link, please remind folks
15:05:53 <iurygregory> July 09
15:06:34 <iurygregory> ops
15:06:34 <iurygregory> 8 July: The Forum CFP closes
15:06:55 <fungi> aha, thanks, i was hunting for the announcement link
15:06:57 <iurygregory> #info Forum CFP closes on July 8 https://summit2025.openinfra.org/
15:07:13 <TheJulia> Excellent, Thanks!
15:07:17 <iurygregory> np
15:07:54 <TheJulia> Oh, one last item before working group updates. Next monday I'm going to be stuck in line to enter a service bay for some repair work, so.... I doub't I'll make the meeting.
15:08:11 <TheJulia> If someone else can be sure to run the meeting, that would be awesome
15:08:17 <TheJulia> #topic Working Group Updates
15:08:30 <TheJulia> First up, the Standalone networking group
15:08:47 <TheJulia> Looks like alegcy is not around today, I think they will be back next week.
15:09:07 <TheJulia> Please take a little time to review the spec
15:09:10 <TheJulia> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic-specs/+/952126
15:09:35 <TheJulia> As for Eventlet Removal!
15:09:55 <TheJulia> Do we have anything to really discuss, aside from what I noted in the IRC log on Friday?
15:10:16 <TheJulia> (We'll need to retool signal handling/stopping the conductor, and explicitly opt out of eventlet entirely with additional code
15:10:17 <TheJulia> )
15:10:32 <cid> Nothing from my end.
15:11:03 <TheJulia> Okay, then, on to Discussion topics!
15:11:07 <TheJulia> #topic Discussion
15:11:34 <TheJulia> fungi brings us a topic this week, "initial analysis of ironic surveys and metrics".
15:11:37 <TheJulia> fungi: you have the floor
15:11:40 <fungi> i'll try to be quick, but there's a lot we dug into... for some background on openstack-wide metrics analysis see ildikov's most recent ml post from 2 weeks ago:
15:11:47 <fungi> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/NTBNI7YIDCWBR6BTPEKVZIODWTVUIOXO/ BtG metrics analysis
15:11:54 <fungi> also could be worthwhile to revisit her previous post in that thread going over the contributor and maintainer survey results (and anyone who hasn't filled those out for epoxy, please see if you can find a few minutes to do that!)
15:12:02 <fungi> as a follow-up activity, we've started doing some team-specific analyses, focusing on teams that had multiple contributor and maintainer survey responses (did nova and cinder a couple weeks ago, octavia coming up later this week)
15:12:14 <fungi> we're early in the process of analyzing these stats with a focus on improving the experience for maintainers and contributors, so for now this is probably a lot of stuff you already know, or at least confirming what you expected
15:12:29 <fungi> a big part of this is establishing a baseline so that we can better gauge whether future attempts at improving have any observable impact, but we aren't at the point where we have much in the way of guidance or recommendations yet
15:12:42 <fungi> we have plans to continue with this sort of surveying and metrics analysis over coming release cycles; as for the initial results...
15:12:47 <fungi> the contributor survey had 2 responses for ironic and both respondents had contributed for at least a year and were contributors to at least two other open source projects
15:12:53 <fungi> most feedback was relatively positive (averaging 3-5 out of 5) with the highest score on "You receive actionable feedback from other reviewers" and lowest "[contributor documentation] It is easy to navigate"
15:13:01 <fungi> the top challenge reported was trouble with review attention when not already working closely with a maintainer, while additional feedback mentioned it was hard to get involved outside of internship programs
15:13:13 <fungi> the maintainer survey also had 2 responses with slightly lower scores than the cntributor survey (averaging 3-4)
15:13:18 <fungi> contributing challenges reported were similar to those from the other survey (review attention) but also disagreements between maintainers delaying changes as well as delays due to testing problems
15:13:26 <fungi> the top challenges with reviewing were insufficient familiarity with some parts of the code, contributors not fixing their changes or responding to feedback in a timely manner, and ai-generated changes with insufficient explanation
15:13:36 <fungi> looking at metrics we gathered from gerrit for the past 5 development cycles, we saw review activity was quite good with relatively fast turn-around compared to openstack as a whole (even if not meeting expectations from contributors)
15:13:46 <fungi> key takeaways seem to be that improving or overhauling the contributor docs could help, as well as diverting more available time to shepherding newer and non-maintainer contributors, perhaps also some attention to test stability
15:13:56 <fungi> the maintainer disagreements over reviews seem like they might be related to the feeling of lack of familiarity with parts of the codebase, i don't know whether doing some deep-dive presentations on the code could help there
15:14:03 <fungi> with ironic doing comparatively well both in terms of survey responses and review metrics, i'd like to set aside time at some point soon to get a better understanding of your team-specific workflows to see if any might be portable
15:14:09 <fungi> sorry, i know that's a pretty big info dump (i tried to pare it down as much as possible), and i'm happy to answer questions or take feedback either here in the meeting or any time after
15:14:21 * iurygregory reading
15:15:20 <TheJulia> So, regarding codebase layout and knowledge, we tend to treat that as 1-on-1 sessions related to folks interests/challenges, and then try to work with them, but I think it would help us know if people really want/need that level of help. Its one of those things which does sink a bit of time into, and I don't think anyone who is a maintainer would really object, we would just need to find the time and actively be aware of
15:15:20 <TheJulia> a desire.
15:15:29 <TheJulia> I suspect, folks are just too afraid to ask?!
15:16:30 <iurygregory> I think some times people are afraid to ask
15:16:31 <fungi> yeah, note it was on the maintainer survey that the lack of familiarity with some parts of the codebase was highlighted as something that made it harder for them to review contributions
15:17:01 <iurygregory> "hard to get involved outside of internship programs"? I'm surprised by this one .-.
15:17:23 <TheJulia> I guess I'm not really if they are afriad to jump in because it is complex
15:17:38 <fungi> keep in mind that we had a whopping total of 2 responses to each survey, this is far from statistically significant response, but rather individual experiences reportedc
15:17:43 <TheJulia> There is likely no one single fix, but some smaller fix we likely need to ponder
15:17:54 <clif> maybe some encouragement to do reviews even if you're not totally familiar with that part of the codebase? view it as an opportunity to learn about different parts of the code while also hopefully improving incoming code quality
15:17:54 <TheJulia> hmm
15:18:09 <TheJulia> so perhaps a lense needs to be applied then
15:18:19 <fungi> yeah, on other projects i've worked on, reviewing changes to parts i'm unfamiliar with has improved my familiarity
15:18:58 <clif> also, reviewing doesn't have to result in actionable feedback to the submitter... sometimes there's nothing you have to add
15:19:11 <TheJulia> The sample size is sort of a skewing aspect. We should likely discuss and ponder how we could be more helpful on the maintainer side
15:19:13 <rpittau> I guess that's where we all started, building familiarity with reviews, and not viceversa?
15:19:35 <iurygregory> one thing to note, sometimes people doesn't even know how to reach out via irc .-.
15:19:36 <TheJulia> Well, we're in this weird shift point in the lifecycle of an OSS proejct
15:19:42 <TheJulia> now it is much more about tactical contribution
15:19:46 <fungi> and as i said at the beginning, the best way to get a more statistically significant overview is for more people to take those surveys
15:19:47 <iurygregory> I received this feedback during OIS Asia last year .-.
15:20:00 <TheJulia> Perfecte example, alegacy working on networking
15:20:09 * TheJulia wonders where that extra e came from
15:20:39 <TheJulia> iurygregory: what feedback did you receive at OIS Asia ?
15:21:14 <dtantsur> on topic of code organization, following the deployment logic through all the modules and obscure functions can deprive anyone of sanity
15:21:24 <iurygregory> that they would prefer other way to contact us (other than irc..)
15:21:39 <TheJulia> Yeah, the whole module model is definitely an area folks struggle
15:21:44 <rpittau> mm I agree with dtantsur
15:21:45 <iurygregory> newer people probably have a hard time
15:21:50 <TheJulia> Yeah, IRC
15:22:13 <iurygregory> ++ agree with dtantsur also
15:22:30 <TheJulia> I think fungi has given us a bit to think about, would it make sense for us to have a group discussion via a higher bandwidth medium at some point soon to try and figure out some action items, above and beyond "hey, go take this survey" messaging
15:23:06 <fungi> well, also i don't expect what we've seen so far is terribly enlightning, but it gives us a starting point for future comparisons
15:23:33 <cid> Indeed
15:23:34 <cid> I can't relate to the "hard to get involved" without onboarding, which is why I think internships does help.
15:23:53 <cid> *can :D
15:24:22 <iurygregory> ++
15:24:39 <fungi> anyway, i didn't have anything else to present, so happy to yield the floor if there are no further questions/comments for now
15:25:06 <iurygregory> I think mentorship (even without internship helps)
15:25:31 <iurygregory> at least that is how winiciusallan[m] has been contributing from time to time =)
15:25:49 <cid> ++.
15:26:02 <fungi> yeah, one of the comments implied that working directly with a maintainer made it easier to get changes merged
15:26:14 <TheJulia> So, let try to circle back next week and see if we have any idea ?
15:26:20 <TheJulia> s/idea/ideas/
15:26:55 <rpittau> sounds good
15:27:01 <fungi> thanks for listening!
15:27:11 <cid> tks, fungi!
15:27:15 <TheJulia> Thanks fungi!
15:27:15 <iurygregory> tks fungi !
15:27:17 <TheJulia> Onward!
15:27:27 <TheJulia> #topic Bug Deputy Updates
15:27:36 <TheJulia> cid: I think you were our deputy last week
15:27:40 <cid> There two bugs and an RFE
15:27:49 <cid> At least, I triaged it as an RFE
15:27:59 <cid> It was from cardoe, I doubt he's around today
15:28:05 <TheJulia> One of those open bugs I suspect I could just close. Its... likely more a doc issue or a troubleshooting guide issue
15:28:18 <cardoe> sorry I'm here I just have 3 meetings wide right now.
15:28:21 <cid> Right...
15:28:29 <cid> This is it by the way, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ironic/+bug/2115471 - Consistent object shape of inventory inspection data
15:29:21 <TheJulia> I think, at a high level it makes sense
15:29:37 <TheJulia> I guess the question ends up also being is any of that data sourced via in-band inspection
15:31:17 <TheJulia> Who volunteers to be the deputy for this week?
15:31:28 <cid> cardoe, ^^. I would think from in-band inspection
15:31:38 <cid> TheJulia, I don't mind!
15:31:42 <TheJulia> cid: okay
15:31:55 <TheJulia> cardoe: cid: so I mean out of band inspection, data not coming from IPA
15:32:23 <cardoe> cid: so no the issue is with all data.
15:32:33 <cardoe> I'm trying to get the in-band (redfish) inspection working.
15:32:38 <cardoe> But that's generating different data.
15:32:58 <cardoe> So I'm trying to create some objects to provide some validation (which is what IPA has in tree)
15:33:16 <cardoe> But it turns out the checks in IPA are bypassed today and it uploads whatever data objects its gotten.
15:33:28 <TheJulia> Yeah, its always going to create different data unfortunately.
15:33:29 <cardoe> If you use a different hardware manager, the shape of the data is different
15:33:34 <TheJulia> yup
15:33:46 <cardoe> So what I'm aiming to do is define inside of Ironic fields that are "required"
15:34:06 <cardoe> And if the required fields are missing, treat like the inspection data is missing (which is what by suggestion is on that bug)
15:34:09 <TheJulia> cardoe: fwiw, I commented on the rfe, indicating general +1, just feels like we need a little bit more clarity/consensus and maybe that is through patches, dunno
15:34:45 <cardoe> e.g. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/953414 is something that Haseeb is trying to fix.
15:35:09 <cardoe> Because it turns out that the name field is required in a few different paths of Ironic
15:35:14 <TheJulia> cardoe: might be worth while to then make it a bit more verbose since thats not how I'm really reading it, but on some level it may also be just an implementation detail
15:35:54 <cardoe> You mean write more details on the bug?
15:35:58 <TheJulia> cardoe: yes
15:36:04 <cardoe> Can do.
15:36:07 <TheJulia> Thanks!
15:36:22 <TheJulia> Onward to open discusion?
15:36:39 <cardoe> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ironic/+bug/2115471 which is what cid linked is just my initial WIP at a model that we can use for validation in the future.
15:37:42 <TheJulia> alegacy: o/
15:37:51 <TheJulia> #topic Open Discussion
15:38:14 <TheJulia> Does anyone have anything they would like to discuss further? Plot? Scheme? etc.
15:39:09 <cardoe> Essentially I'm using dataclasses so that you can use something like pyright / mypy to confirm we're messing with fields and you'd just get a warning in your IDE with pyright if you're accessing a field that's not explicitly defined so that should give someone pause to make sure it's good.
15:40:19 <cardoe> sorry for my poor communication. Trying to listen in on the Neutron BGP call and also on a call providing an update to my leadership chain about my team's work.
15:41:54 <TheJulia> cardoe: no worries! That is a lot!
15:42:14 <TheJulia> Well, if there is nothing else, I'll give everyone back at least 15 minutes to plot/scheme and try to take over the world.
15:43:25 <cid> \o/.
15:43:31 * TheJulia wonders if we forgot to make coffee this morning
15:43:44 <TheJulia> Thanks everyone!
15:43:49 <TheJulia> #stopmeeting
15:43:55 <TheJulia> #endmeeting