18:01:09 <TheJulia> #startmeeting ironic_ui
18:01:10 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun 20 18:01:09 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is TheJulia. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:11 <TheJulia> o/
18:01:12 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:01:14 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ironic_ui'
18:01:17 <crushil> \o
18:01:17 <ppiela> Hello
18:01:37 <ppiela> Hey crushil: How are things?
18:01:49 <crushil> ppiela, BUsy. How about you?
18:02:03 <TheJulia> Greetings everyone!
18:02:26 <ppiela> Busy also, did you get your Ironic setup going?
18:02:40 <TheJulia> Our agenda, as always;
18:02:40 <ppiela> Hi TheJulia:
18:02:42 <crushil> ppiela, I did. Hi TheJulia
18:02:45 <TheJulia> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic-ui
18:02:56 <ppiela> crushil: Cool!
18:03:11 <ppiela> crushil: I had meant to checkin
18:03:20 <TheJulia> #topic Announcements/Reminders
18:03:52 <TheJulia> The only thing I have is that we are about a month away from needing to cut the ironic-ui release for the translation team to be able to do any translation updates before the end of the cycle.
18:03:52 <ppiela> None here
18:04:50 <TheJulia> So, tl;dr, reviewing would be appreciated. :)
18:05:21 <TheJulia> #info ironic-ui is approximately 1 month from where we will need to cut the release to enable time for the translation team to perform their work.
18:05:30 <TheJulia> Anyone have anything else?
18:05:45 <crushil> I will be out for 3 weeks starting monday
18:06:08 <crushil> I'll try to do some reviews before I leave
18:06:16 <TheJulia> crushil: Much appreciated!
18:06:44 <ppiela> thanks crushil:
18:07:26 <TheJulia> #topic Current Status
18:07:54 <TheJulia> #info Please review :)
18:07:57 <TheJulia> #undo
18:07:58 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: #info Please review :)
18:08:09 <TheJulia> #info Please review outstanding reviews for ironic-ui. :)
18:08:22 <TheJulia> I think that sums up priorities as well actually
18:09:28 <TheJulia> ppiela: I noticed you updated the testing framework revision, I'll look at it after the meeting.
18:09:36 <ppiela> I would like to see the unit test work land asap as it will effect all subsequent commits
18:09:56 <TheJulia> Agreed, I noticed the delta was about ~124 lines, so it should be quick to review
18:10:01 <TheJulia> well, re-review
18:10:23 <TheJulia> #topic Planning/Priorities
18:11:08 <TheJulia> #info Priority is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/469459/
18:11:34 <TheJulia> ppiela: I see it has 2x +1, so if nothing stand out as problematic I'll land it in a little bit.
18:11:57 <TheJulia> Is there anything else that is a priority right now that anyone wants to raise at this time?
18:11:59 <ppiela> TheJulia: great!
18:12:16 <ppiela> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/473539/
18:13:01 <ppiela> That patchset adds support for testing port-based functionality
18:13:48 <TheJulia> Ah yes, good one to get landed next as well
18:13:49 <TheJulia> #info Next priority is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/473539/
18:14:03 <TheJulia> Anything else?
18:15:00 <ppiela> I would like to work with both anup and rama to get their changes landed in the next week
18:16:01 <TheJulia> It doesn't look like we have anup today, do you happen to remember rama's IRC handle?
18:16:18 <ppiela> rama_y
18:17:22 <TheJulia> I got rama_y's attention :)
18:17:28 <TheJulia> o/
18:17:32 <rama_y> o/
18:18:25 <TheJulia> o/ anupn
18:18:37 <anupn> Hi all
18:18:48 <ppiela> Hi anupn:
18:19:00 <ppiela> and rama_y
18:19:10 <TheJulia> anupn: rama_y: Long story short, we've been prioritizing since we need to cut our release in about a month for translation folks to have time
18:19:25 <rama_y> hi ppiela
18:20:20 <ppiela> anupn: rama_y: thanks for the good review comments
18:21:32 <anupn> ppiela: :) Thanks for the patch, important stuff
18:21:42 <rama_y> with the resource_class patch, is it possible to add unit tests as an add-on?
18:22:31 <rama_y> Thanks for the unit testing patch, ppiela
18:22:33 <ppiela> anupn:, rama_y: I would like to work with you to get your changes landed in the next week, I think we are close
18:22:43 <anupn> TheJulia, ppiela: when can unit test framework patch be landed?
18:22:46 <anupn> ppiela, ok
18:22:50 <TheJulia> rama_y: the preference is to go ahead and have the patches with the change. If you absolutely must propose as a follow-up patch, then I guess we can hold off landing it until the the unit tests are written.
18:22:51 <anupn> that sounds good
18:23:00 <TheJulia> The general rule is that tests should land with changes
18:23:17 <rama_y> Right
18:24:19 <TheJulia> Also, regarding next week, we are hoping to have some additional review bandwidth on hand, so that should help things as well. :)
18:24:46 <rama_y> with set-boot-device patch, wondering if nodes can be set to a specific boot device in batch?
18:25:37 <TheJulia> rama_y: that is a great question, I'm fairly sure that the API does not support that
18:25:45 <TheJulia> since it would be a node level operation
18:26:08 <rama_y> Yes; so, I will make sure the patch supports only per node
18:26:09 <TheJulia> Requests could be pipelined, but that would be about it since they are in distinct patches
18:26:15 <ppiela> TheJulia: interested in your thinking on that question
18:26:53 <TheJulia> ppiela: how so?
18:27:06 * TheJulia also wonders if we're entering discussion territory :)
18:27:22 <ppiela> TheJulia: probably so
18:27:46 <TheJulia> Well, since we do seem to be in that territory, and if there are no objections, we can go to open discussion to continue.
18:28:15 <TheJulia> #topic Open Discussion
18:28:36 <TheJulia> ppiela: So interested in the question that rama_y raised regarding batch setting of boot device?
18:29:05 * TheJulia feels slightly confused :)
18:29:18 <anupn> but that needs to also create such API in ironic?
18:29:49 <ppiela> TheJulia: for set_boot_device batch use case, would the "controller" look at the list of selected nodes, and find a common set of options from which to select?
18:30:53 <TheJulia> At least API wise, the set_boot_device action is limited to a post on a resource attached to a node, so API wise, it is a serialized operation that can only be completed one at time.
18:32:15 * TheJulia hopes that answers the question
18:32:19 <rama_y> Same thing for 'node-get-supported-boot-devices', I think.
18:32:28 <TheJulia> yup
18:32:34 <anupn> yup
18:32:55 <rama_y> :)
18:33:25 <ppiela> Batch operations typically involve the user selecting a set of nodes and applying an operation to them, e.g. set-maintenance-true
18:33:55 <ppiela> In some cases this might be a noop
18:34:39 <ppiela> We know the applied value has meaning for all nodes
18:36:16 <TheJulia> ppiela: I see what your asking now
18:36:19 <ppiela> Boot device is different in that respect in that there may not be values common to all nodes
18:37:05 <TheJulia> Yeah, it is driver or management controller specific in some cases if memory serves
18:37:16 <TheJulia> but we also don't store the current state
18:37:23 <TheJulia> so it would have to be queried explicitly
18:37:33 <ppiela> yes
18:38:11 <rama_y> yes
18:39:39 <TheJulia> since the status should be known by the controller, it makes sense to allow a batch operation (but the controller would have to do all the work) for setting maintenance.  boot device is a one-off admin explicit action per node, typically when troubleshooting something like a failed TripleO upgrade.
18:40:00 <ppiela> I just dont know if users would value the batch set everyone to a value functionality
18:40:31 <TheJulia> I doubt they would for boot devices since it's use is limited to troubleshooting.
18:40:43 <ppiela> Right
18:40:47 <TheJulia> Maintenance, it makes sense if someone's business processes support/encourage it
18:40:48 * anupn agrees with TheJulia
18:41:02 <ppiela> Yes
18:41:40 <ppiela> My vote is not to do the batch use case, we can add it later if there is demand
18:42:18 <rama_y> sounds good
18:42:27 <TheJulia> ++
18:42:37 <TheJulia> Do we feel the need for an #agreed? or are we good?
18:42:41 <anupn> yes, i feel no need of it for now
18:42:57 * TheJulia senses we are good
18:43:03 <ppiela> yep
18:43:06 <rama_y> yep
18:43:37 <TheJulia> Anything else to discuss? Sports? Trading cards? Taking over the world?
18:43:56 <rama_y> TheJulia, ppiela, what is the recommendation for running npm tests?
18:45:06 <TheJulia> rama_y: I think `npm test` should work for you
18:45:38 <anupn> TheJulia, ppiela rama_y is there going to be discussion about IronicUI in PTG
18:45:53 <rama_y> ok
18:46:03 <rama_y> good question anupn
18:46:31 * anupn loves travelling that's other fact ;)
18:46:50 <ppiela> rama_y: Does that answer your question. npm run test will run them, and I recommend that we all start adding more
18:46:54 <TheJulia> anupn: I'm presently planning on attending, I don't know about others yet.
18:47:12 <rama_y> yes ppiela, thanks
18:48:24 <anupn> TheJulia, I see, I am not sure as I heard of some budget issue at work
18:50:05 <TheJulia> anupn: To better answer the question, if others will be there, we can surely carve out some time to discuss UI.
18:50:19 <anupn> TheJulia, got you
18:51:26 <TheJulia> Anything else for today?
18:51:39 <ppiela> Not here
18:51:52 <rama_y> Same here, thanks for the discussion
18:52:25 <anupn> not from me
18:52:28 <TheJulia> Awesome, thank you everyone, and see you in #openstack-ironic
18:52:32 <TheJulia> Have a wonderful day!
18:52:34 <TheJulia> #endmeeting