15:00:07 <carloss> #startmeeting manila 15:00:07 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu May 29 15:00:07 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is carloss. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:07 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:07 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'manila' 15:00:28 <gouthamr> o/ 15:00:43 <carloss> courtesy ping: dviroel vhari carthaca msaravan Sai ashrodri gireesh 15:00:55 <Sai> o/ 15:02:00 <haixin> :) 15:03:45 <carloss> o/ hello zorillas 15:03:58 <carloss> our meeting agenda for today: 15:04:24 <carloss> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Meetings#Next_meeting 15:04:44 <carloss> so this is still the bugsquash week 15:04:48 <carloss> we'll get to that in a bit 15:04:55 <carloss> but first 15:04:57 <carloss> #topic Announcements 15:05:01 <carloss> Schedule and Deadlines 15:05:07 <carloss> #link https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html (Flamingo Schedule) 15:05:46 <carloss> we're now two weeks away from our hackathon, which in the initial idea of the PTG targeted functional tests for the python-manilaclient repo 15:06:06 <carloss> targeting OSC, I mean 15:06:12 <carloss> we wanted to do that before we remove the manilaclient 15:06:28 <kpdev> hi 15:06:38 * carloss o/ 15:06:50 <carloss> do you have any concerns with regards to the hackathon date? as in: are you okay with it being in two weeks from now? 15:08:32 <gouthamr> sounds good; however we may need a bunch of pre-work to determine the gaps 15:09:17 <carloss> gouthamr: yep, I can work on that 15:09:27 <gouthamr> wait, you said two weeks from now 15:09:42 <gouthamr> but, on the schedule it is R-13 15:09:46 <gouthamr> Jun 30 - Jul 04 15:09:54 <carloss> argh, yes 15:10:00 <carloss> something wrong with my eyes today 15:10:03 <carloss> gouthamr: thanks 15:10:28 <carloss> next deadline is spec freeze, 3 weeks from now 15:11:03 <carloss> my bad 15:12:02 <carloss> that's all I had for $topic 15:12:19 <carloss> do you have any other announcements you'd like to share with the zorillas today? 15:13:11 <gouthamr> not an announcement, per se.. but a word on availability - mine is going to be iffy over the next couple of months.. i'd probably engage more async than usual 15:13:45 <gouthamr> hoping to still keep up with reviews, and will need some notice to have sync conversations 15:16:36 <carloss> gouthamr: ack, thanks for the heads-up 15:17:08 <carloss> and also for offering time in case we need :) 15:17:53 <carloss> let's switch to Bug triaging, and then we can talk bugsquash 15:18:05 <carloss> #topic Bug Triage 15:18:14 <carloss> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/manila-bug-triage-pad-new (Bug triage etherpad) 15:18:21 <carloss> a bunch of new bugs 15:19:12 <carloss> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/2111813 ([NetApp] enable aes-encryption for cifs) 15:19:33 <carloss> we seem to have a fix proposed: 15:19:42 <carloss> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/manila/+/951087 ([NetApp] Enable aes-encryption for cifs) 15:19:47 <kpdev> yes, assigned to self 15:19:55 <carloss> kpdev: thank you 15:20:17 <carloss> kpdev: is it breaking any workflows? 15:20:40 <kpdev> its was fix of some error during cifs share creation 15:20:49 <kpdev> mentioned in commit 15:20:55 <carloss> yep 15:21:11 <carloss> I think we can make it medium importance 15:21:13 <gouthamr> is this really a bug? 15:21:28 <gouthamr> sounds like a missing feature.. what's failing without this? 15:22:06 <kpdev> kind of bug or small feature. was getting error during share creation KRB5KDC_ERR_ETYPE_NOSUPP.. mentioned in commit 15:22:16 <kpdev> but PR is small, I created bug and fixed via it. 15:22:28 <gouthamr> sounds fine, some bugs are really RFEs 15:22:44 <gouthamr> but, did something change in ONTAP to require it? 15:22:44 <kpdev> also.. manila-grenade-skip-level-always still failing for recheck of all patches I retried since yesterday. 15:23:35 <carloss> > also.. manila-grenade-skip-level-always still failing for recheck of all patches I retried since yesterday. 15:23:35 <carloss> yep, that's one of the topics I wanted to mention, as I also noticed it when I was looking at changes from the bugsquash and rebasing them 15:24:40 <gouthamr> https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/f9beac99a25043229c93ad2605d85e9d/log/job-output.txt#15713-15736 15:24:55 <gouthamr> ^ i haven't checked the chatter to see if neutron folks know about this 15:28:49 <gouthamr> https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/f9beac99a25043229c93ad2605d85e9d/log/controller/logs/screen-neutron-api.txt looks fine to me 15:29:08 <carloss> yes 15:29:08 <kpdev> >but, did something change in ONTAP to require it? ... No, nothing changed. it was downstreamed since last 2-3 years, upstreaming it now. 15:30:06 <gouthamr> kpdev: sounds like some ONTAP configuration in your cloud requires this 15:31:32 <carloss> ++ - maybe we should tag as an RFE 15:31:33 <gouthamr> Sai/gireesh: please take a look.. i'd be concerned if this is not available/expected to be turned on my default.. because i've not seen an issue creating cifs shares/access rules without AES encryption enabled.. 15:32:03 <kpdev> I dont see any special config did for this feature. but yes netapp internal testing and review would be better to confirm. 15:32:21 <carloss> ++ 15:32:23 <gouthamr> https://kb.netapp.com/on-prem/ontap/da/NAS/NAS-KBs/Can_we_enable_AES_encryption_on_CIFS_server 15:32:34 <Sai> I will dissolve with Gireesh on this. Will update him. Thanks. 15:32:47 <Sai> Discuss* 15:33:00 <carloss> Sai: thanks 15:33:20 <gouthamr> also this: https://docs.netapp.com/us-en/ontap/smb-admin/enable-disable-aes-encryption-kerberos-task.html 15:34:05 <gouthamr> "Whether AES encryption is enabled by default and whether you have the option to specify encryption types depends on your ONTAP version." - maybe the driver will need to do this based on the ONTAP versions 15:35:16 <gouthamr> also, the option is changing with newer versions 15:35:43 <gouthamr> with newer versions of ONTAP, you can specify the encryption type 15:35:45 <kpdev> hmm. so this will be 9.11.1 and earlier 15:36:20 <kpdev> I will update fix to consider versions 15:37:12 <carloss> kpdev++ 15:38:07 <carloss> thanks 15:38:54 <carloss> I think we have time for another untriaged bug 15:39:06 <carloss> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/2111905 (NetApp - Need to provide the option to override the “is-shared” field value for qos policy created during share creation) 15:40:05 <carloss> sounds like an RFE 15:40:24 <gouthamr> yeah 15:40:33 <carloss> i see gireesh already added himself to assignee 15:40:38 <carloss> likely low prio 15:41:05 <gouthamr> +1 15:41:13 <carloss> Sai: are you aware if gireesh is planning to work on this? 15:41:32 <gireesh> yes, these are kind of RFE, one of the customer is requesting for these. We will work on these 15:42:23 <carloss> gireesh: ack, thank you! 15:43:17 <carloss> we have another untriaged bug that seems a bit high prio 15:43:30 * carloss is hijacking all the time of bugsquash to bug triaging :/ 15:43:44 <carloss> this is the last one I'll bring up today, I promise 15:43:53 <carloss> #link #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/2111918 ([Manila][NetApp][REST]Share deletion is failing at NetApp volume creation saying: Field "retention_period" cannot be set in this operation") 15:44:15 <carloss> Sai thank for reporting this bug! 15:44:34 <carloss> I've set kpdev as an assignee mostly for an investigation reason, as I think he might have the most context on this change 15:44:41 <Sai> Np, Thank you carloss !! 15:44:42 <carloss> apparently, share deletion is failing in REST 15:44:52 <carloss> kpdev: could you please take a look? 15:45:02 <carloss> this might be a regression 15:45:17 <carloss> if it is, we'll need to have an owner to this fix 15:45:23 <kpdev> No, I had added fix there based on documentation. but this time we need correct soluton from netapp 15:45:40 <kpdev> since the field I mentioned no longer present in REST documentation. 15:46:11 <kpdev> so need to find another way to provide retention_period. NetApp needs to update on bug how to do it and then I will raise PR. 15:46:17 <carloss> so might be something varying from one ontap version to another? 15:46:32 <carloss> so, this is one of those issues the NetApp CI would easily catch :/ 15:47:08 <Sai> kpdev: Meanwhile, can you please update the documentation you referred earlier in the bug. Thanks 15:47:13 <kpdev> not sure about version, we are not using REST yet. 15:47:24 <gireesh> retention_period need to set in patch call not in post call. Once vserver is created after that we have to set this parameter - kpdev 15:47:32 <kpdev> The documentation redirect to new pages now, I had shared with you earlier 15:48:03 <kpdev> @gireesh: got it, can anyone from netapp update that on bug ? 15:48:26 <gireesh> ok, I'll do this 15:48:38 <carloss> ack, thank you 15:48:56 <carloss> please update the bug as well 15:49:54 <carloss> alright, let's move to the next topic 15:50:09 <carloss> #topic Bugsquash - Review-a-thon 15:50:14 <carloss> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/manila-flamingo-m1-bugsquash (Flamingo m-1 bugsquash) 15:50:19 <carloss> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/manila-flamingo-m1-bugsquash (Flamingo m-1 bugsquash) 15:50:58 <carloss> so we had the kick-off call on Tuesday and I am posting the video to the YouTube channel 15:51:39 <carloss> we've got review assignments, so I'd like to ask reviewers to take a look at the changes 15:51:57 <carloss> we have the CI situation at the moment, but there are some easy wins for us that are not relying on the CI being working rn 15:52:06 <carloss> I'm talking about documentation bugs 15:53:00 <carloss> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/manila/+/945891 (Add mount snapshot support to user guide) 15:53:18 <carloss> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/manila/+/934462 (Updates the share extend and shrink documentation) 15:53:39 <carloss> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/manila/+/946505 (use os cli for shared-file-crud-share.rst) 15:54:11 <carloss> two of these already have +2s/+1 from cores 15:54:18 <carloss> can I get more eyes on them? 15:54:35 <gouthamr> yep 15:54:37 <haixin> i will check this 15:54:45 <carloss> gouthamr haixin thank you very much! 15:55:01 <carloss> now for the other changes, which are being impacted by the CI situation 15:55:24 <carloss> I've looked at the job history and apparently it is failing for a while 15:56:02 <carloss> I tried correlating to the changes that were merged to openstack/neutron on a given date but these don't seem to be a problem 15:56:16 <carloss> and as gouthamr also mentioned, neutron API seems to be working just fine 15:57:27 <carloss> I posted some review comments to a bunch of changes, some are being resolved, but CI won't let these changes merges even if we have agreement from reviewers 15:57:35 <carloss> I'll investigate the failures 15:57:39 <carloss> in the meantime 15:59:23 <carloss> not a very good timing for the CI being broken 15:59:31 <carloss> but I think we are getting reviews in some changes 15:59:58 <carloss> and when CI issues are fixed, we can go ahead and merge the changes that are blocked by it 16:00:02 <carloss> questions? suggestions? 16:01:05 <carloss> alright, let's wrap up 16:01:10 <carloss> and get back to #openstack-manila 16:01:15 <carloss> thanks for participating 16:01:27 <carloss> and have a great day 16:01:29 <carloss> #endmeeting