15:05:12 <bswartz> #startmeeting manila
15:05:13 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Mar  3 15:05:12 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is bswartz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:05:14 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:05:17 <toabctl> hey :)
15:05:17 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'manila'
15:05:20 <tbarron> hi
15:05:21 <xyang1> hi
15:05:22 <ganso> hello
15:05:23 <bswartz> much better
15:05:25 <csaba> hi
15:05:26 <ameade> ha
15:05:35 <markstur> hi
15:05:36 <dustins> Jokes on the Freezer guys, they get our random banter at the end of their minutes :D
15:05:41 <dustins> Joke's*
15:05:45 <dustins> Hey all
15:06:01 <bswartz> alright there is only 1 priority today
15:06:14 <bswartz> we have to tag the milestone and some stuff isn't merged yet
15:06:20 <Poornima> hi
15:06:34 <bswartz> so I'm going to cover the items I know about any if I miss anything please chime in
15:06:42 <bswartz> #topic migration code
15:06:58 <bswartz> #link https://review.openstack.org/250518
15:07:02 <ganso> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/250515/
15:07:09 <bswartz> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/250515/
15:07:15 <bswartz> okay client is rebased
15:07:19 <bswartz> server is waiting for recheck
15:07:31 <bswartz> I think this one is fine except for recheck hell
15:08:02 <bswartz> #topic tegile driver
15:08:13 <bswartz> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/278169/
15:08:28 <bswartz> I believe this one is fine, just waiting for +1 from tegile CI, since it failed the last run
15:08:37 <bswartz> the CI has been stable for weeks though
15:09:03 <bswartz> #topic ceph driver
15:09:19 <bswartz> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/274952/
15:09:29 <bswartz> there's problems with the client patch
15:09:42 <bswartz> who is fixing this?
15:09:48 <bswartz> rraga?
15:09:50 <bswartz> rraja?
15:09:54 <rraja> bswartz: i'm working on it.
15:10:20 <gouthamr> rraja: i'm just consulting with cFouts who did the wraps implementation in manilaclient
15:10:36 <bswartz> rraja: this won't take more than a few minutes right?
15:10:38 <gouthamr> rraja: we'll help you resolve that issue... sorry for the delay
15:10:48 <bswartz> oh, is there more than I realize?
15:10:50 <rraja> bswartz: i've been closely working with the help of gouthamr and ganso to get to the right approach
15:11:03 <bswartz> how far away are we from having a successful patch?
15:11:09 <rraja> bswartz: there were some issues that need to be sorted out.
15:11:46 <ganso> rraja: is there any functional issue to sort out?
15:11:54 <bswartz> rraja: I'm looking for a number -- an amount of time
15:12:12 <bswartz> I'm hoping to push tags within a couple of hours
15:12:32 <gouthamr> rraja ganso: Valeriy would suggest adding a functional test if he were here i guess.. but we can defer that to later.
15:12:54 <ganso> gouthamr, rraja what is currently issue exactly?
15:12:56 <bswartz> are there no functional tests or just insufficient tests?
15:13:21 <bswartz> correct me if I'm wrong, but the ceph driver won't work without this client patch
15:13:23 <gouthamr> ganso: i was hoping we can get away without the wraps decorator.. but i was wrong about that.
15:13:23 <rraja> bswartz: ok. i've not written any functional tests, i've just unit tests. and
15:13:57 <bswartz> rraja: please do any additional functional tests in another patch
15:14:03 <gouthamr> bswartz: any functional tests will be just to test whether the access rule request can be made.. it won't apply the rule with the generic driver..
15:14:14 <ganso> bswartz: as far as I know it works, the client patch is mostly adding an access type validation that is standard in the manilaclient
15:14:21 <bswartz> we need to get this one done
15:14:24 <gouthamr> bswartz: so maybe we can make do with the unit test
15:15:16 <bswartz> rraja: I'm still waiting for a time estimate
15:15:35 <bswartz> will this be done within the hour, or should I look for it after lunch? later this evening?
15:16:03 <rraja> bswartz: without the unit tests, and if gouthamr is clear with an answer for my question i can get it done soon. maybe even in an hour.
15:16:15 <bswartz> okay that's the right answer!
15:16:22 <bswartz> wait
15:16:27 <bswartz> you said without unit test?
15:16:35 <gouthamr> bswartz: he has unit tests
15:16:37 <bswartz> I though there were unit tests and the funcitonal tests were missing
15:16:41 <gouthamr> rraja: commented on your patch
15:17:17 <rraja> bswartz: sorry! i need to rearrange unit tests. so give me a couple of hours to be on the safer side. so what time is lunch? it's 9 PM my time now
15:17:30 <bswartz> we don't have a couple of hours
15:18:03 <rraja> bswartz: OK. give me an hour then.
15:18:03 <bswartz> 2 hours tops
15:18:06 <bswartz> okay
15:18:08 <bswartz> thank you
15:18:18 <bswartz> #topic gluster heketi
15:18:44 <bswartz> There are 3 patches here, and CI hasn't been seen reporting ever
15:18:49 <bswartz> I'm pushing this one to newton
15:19:17 <csaba> OK
15:19:42 <bswartz> #topic manila UI patch for share instances
15:19:47 <bswartz> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/260554/
15:20:03 <bswartz> vponomaryov: you said you were going to look at this ^
15:20:27 * bswartz wonders where vponomaryov is
15:21:16 <bswartz> okay so this is a tough one
15:21:25 <bswartz> it's been up for a long time, but received no attention
15:21:32 <bswartz> I'm uncomfortable merging it this late
15:21:43 <bswartz> I'm inclined to push to newton
15:21:43 <cknight> bswartz: +1  I'm not sure why this is critical.
15:22:23 <bswartz> cknight: I think it was supposed to lay groundwork for share replication UI, but that also hasn't been working on in mitaka
15:22:33 <bswartz> other than u_glide's prototype last year
15:23:03 <bswartz> I think we'll have to look at UI updates for replication in Newton
15:23:14 <bswartz> and this patch can slip to newton too
15:23:29 <bswartz> so I'll be tagging manila-ui immediately after the meeting
15:24:15 <bswartz> #topic cursed patch fixing help outputs in client
15:24:20 <bswartz> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/267383/
15:24:36 <bswartz> I see 9 rechecks here
15:24:40 <cknight> bswartz: Definitely cursed.
15:24:49 <bswartz> am I missing something?
15:25:00 <gouthamr> bswartz: i've found that recheck with some cheesy encouragement message to jenkins will push patches through
15:25:11 <gouthamr> lol
15:25:30 <bswartz> are we sure it doesn't need rebase or something else to get it through?
15:26:26 <gouthamr> bswartz: the logs seem to suggest those failures are the usual suspects with the generic driver
15:26:27 <markstur> probably needs a rebase
15:26:43 <bswartz> that patch isn't essential, but I'd like to see it go in
15:27:10 <bswartz> so if someone has some jenkins-fairy-dust, please sprinkle it on that patch
15:27:23 <bswartz> #topic admin-only CLI help
15:27:30 <bswartz> #link https://review.openstack.org/287436
15:27:42 <bswartz> this one is controversial
15:27:51 <ameade> o
15:27:53 <bswartz> xyang markstur and I approved it
15:28:08 <ameade> i'll chime in here
15:28:09 <bswartz> gouthamr vponomaryov cknight ganso dislike it
15:28:15 <ameade> I dont think we have admin apis
15:28:18 <ameade> that doesnt make sense
15:28:32 <ameade> we have some policies that default to admin only
15:28:32 <gouthamr> ameade: +1
15:28:41 <bswartz> ameade: I think the argument has been made already
15:28:52 <xyang1> we talk about admin api in our docs as well
15:29:00 <bswartz> the question is whether xyang or markstur want to change their opinions
15:29:07 <xyang1> why is this help text such a big issue
15:29:10 <markstur> I initially disliked it, but didn't block it.
15:29:12 <ameade> glance tried to solve this way back by having the client grab wadls that are generated based on what actions the requested user can perform
15:29:24 <ameade> that was complicated to say the least
15:29:31 <gouthamr> would we really be helping users?
15:29:34 <ameade> and slow since the client had to grab the wadl
15:29:41 <cknight> ameade: +1 That sounds like a lot of work for little gain.
15:29:47 <gouthamr> we'd be confusing them even more.
15:29:54 <bswartz> yes nobody is proposing figuring out which APIs are admin only at runtime for help purposes
15:30:29 <ameade> private clouds often open up more apis to users
15:30:36 <gouthamr> bswartz: i'm with you on saying that horizon would be a nice place to do some admin validation.. but CLI shouldn't be..
15:30:41 <ameade> and big clouds may do more complex rbac
15:30:41 <bswartz> my opinion is that the vast majority of installation don't modify policy.json, and the ones that do are the least likely to need client help text
15:31:14 <bswartz> so having slightly inaccurate help text is harmless, and the benefit is that inexperienced users are less confused
15:31:15 <gouthamr> bswartz: i don't agree ... it is probably modified extensively by providers..
15:31:24 <bswartz> I know I'm in the minority here
15:31:36 <Yogi1> bswartz +1
15:31:49 <xyang1> bswartz: +1
15:32:03 <gouthamr> its easy for an administrator to modify policy.json
15:32:11 <gouthamr> would it be easy for them to change the python files?
15:32:12 <ameade> i'm not sure what my opinion is here but i'm leaning towards gouthams suggestion
15:32:32 <ameade> just to avoid lying to the user
15:32:53 <gouthamr> we've solved this problem with the server. my vote's for using that solution as elegantly as we present it :)
15:33:06 <dustins> ameade: +1, we should avoid lying and confusing our users
15:33:06 <bswartz> it would be nice if there was a way to solve the confused newbie user problem in a 100% accurate way
15:33:17 <dustins> This stuff is complicated enough as is
15:33:39 <Yogi1> We will be lying to only those users who are modifying the policy.json
15:33:50 <bswartz> I still believe the way we've implemented is helpful in the vast majority of cases
15:33:58 <gouthamr> Yogi1: users generally have no access to that, i would assume
15:34:01 <Yogi1> However for those who don't modify its useful
15:34:22 <bswartz> yes there are cases where it's wrong
15:34:30 <ameade> i dont have my finger on the pulse of how often policy.json is tweaked
15:35:01 <gouthamr> Well, we respond with a 403 and a Administrator privileges are required for this request; don't we?
15:35:02 <bswartz> one thing we've learned is that the vast majority of openstack deployments are private cloud, in an enterprise setting
15:35:14 <markstur> most of our admin-only is that way by design, not by whim
15:35:23 <Yogi1> gouthamr We respond with 403 only after using the CLI
15:35:24 <bswartz> the dream of "public" openstack clouds is dying quickly
15:35:27 <markstur> but we intend policy.json to be changeable
15:35:44 <ameade> bswartz: i do tend to agree with that
15:35:52 <Yogi1> this tagging gives info about it even before you try the command
15:35:53 <gouthamr> yes... imho CLI is to make requests, not to do everything that the server already does..
15:35:53 <markstur> So the hard-coded help is a bad "design".
15:36:27 <ameade> perhaps this is a problem for later?
15:36:34 <markstur> Whether it is better merged or reverted.  I'm OK with PTL decision unless there are other votes.
15:36:37 <ameade> with swagger for all projects coming in
15:36:41 <ameade> and moving to openstackclient
15:36:46 <bswartz> ameade: yes I'd like to solve the problem later
15:36:47 <markstur> but we can't go back and forth
15:36:49 <ameade> there may soon be easier ways to solve this
15:36:56 <bswartz> but we have a patch to consider
15:37:10 <gouthamr> bswartz: could we not try to help users now with this?
15:37:46 <bswartz> I still fail to see the great harm leaving it in, and I agree with markstur that the worst thing we can do is go back and forth multiple times
15:37:50 <ameade> most people are using horizon i imagine, making this less of an issue
15:37:53 <gouthamr> we should solve the problem in a better way, i agree.. but not this way
15:38:17 <bswartz> I propose we wait for the solution that makes us all happy, and make the change then
15:38:35 <xyang1> bswartz: +1
15:39:05 <ganso> bswartz: but then we shouldn't stay with what is not agreeable
15:39:19 <ganso> bswartz: I think this should be reverted and thought through
15:39:20 <Yogi1> bswartz +1
15:39:49 <bswartz> at least 3 cores agreed it should go in
15:40:03 <bswartz> that was regrettable because clearly we should have discussed it more in the first place
15:40:13 <ameade> i dont think we should spend anymore time on it, bswartz makes the call and we all gotta be happy with it for now
15:40:24 <bswartz> however it's in, and I don't want to take it out and add it back later
15:40:43 <bswartz> I'm going to -2 the current patch and wait for a better solution
15:40:46 <gouthamr> cool, will abandon the change, thanks
15:40:55 <bswartz> gouthamr thanks
15:41:02 <bswartz> #topic open discussion
15:41:05 <bswartz> that's the end of my list
15:41:10 <bswartz> did I miss anything important
15:41:23 <ameade> wanna thank folks for the DR reviews
15:41:24 <dustins> bswartz: anything news on the triple o patch
15:41:33 <dustins> any news*
15:41:48 <ameade> there will be a few more tweaks in mitaka i think so more reviews appreciated :)
15:41:56 <bswartz> dustins: I expect you to be more informed on redhat matter than me
15:42:10 <bswartz> last I heard, Manila was out of RHEL OSP 8, and out of 9 too
15:42:17 <dustins> Indeed, yes
15:42:24 <bswartz> Manila is targeted to go into RHEL OSP 10
15:42:35 <dustins> Yup
15:42:53 <bswartz> therefore the patch is moot until newton
15:43:06 <dustins> Makes sense to me!
15:43:11 <dustins> Thanks, bswartz!
15:44:03 <bswartz> okay if there's nothing else let's get back to merging stuff
15:44:31 <bswartz> when the tegile guys wake up somebody please poke them about their CI not reporting on their own patch
15:44:49 <bswartz> #endmeeting