15:00:10 <carloss> #startmeeting manila
15:00:11 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu Oct  9 15:00:10 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is carloss. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:11 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:11 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'manila'
15:00:22 <carloss> courtesy ping: dviroel vhari gouthamr Sai ashrodri gireesh
15:00:23 <vhari> hi
15:00:49 <Sai> o/
15:02:19 <zgoggin> o/
15:02:50 <kpdev> hi
15:05:20 <carloss> o/ hello everyone and welcome
15:05:22 <carloss> thanks for joining
15:05:25 <carloss> and let's get started
15:05:33 <carloss> our meeting agenda for today:
15:05:37 <carloss> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Meetings#Next_meeting (Meeting agenda)
15:06:50 <carloss> let's start with our first topic:
15:06:52 <carloss> #topic Announcements
15:07:33 <carloss> Schedule and Deadlines
15:07:34 <carloss> #link https://releases.openstack.org/gazpacho/schedule.html (Gazpacho Schedule)
15:07:55 <carloss> this is the second week of the Gazpacho cycle
15:08:00 <carloss> and we're two weeks away from the PTG
15:08:13 <carloss> s/two weeks/ ~20 days
15:08:52 <carloss> I've already booked some slots for the PTG week, as you can see in the official PTG schedule:
15:08:55 <carloss> #link https://ptg.opendev.org/ptg.html (PTG schedule)
15:09:12 <carloss> but we might see some changes for the Monday slot
15:09:58 * gouthamr logs in, marks himself tardy
15:10:07 * carloss waves at gouthamr o/
15:10:21 <carloss> I'll update you as soon as possible on any change I make to the schedule
15:10:30 <carloss> but we can use the current allocated time slots as a starting point
15:11:06 <Anoop_Shukla> Hi
15:11:13 <gireesh> hi
15:11:57 <carloss> gireesh Anoop_Shukla o/
15:12:06 <carloss> that's all I had in terms of announcements
15:12:12 <carloss> do you have an announcement to share today?
15:12:58 * carloss taking silence as no
15:13:09 <carloss> I have a late addition to this meeting
15:13:13 <carloss> #topic Collab review follow-up
15:13:33 <carloss> kpdev: thanks for walking us through the encryption testing changes
15:13:39 <carloss> the video is now available in:
15:13:44 <carloss> #link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEidfpE7isk (Encryption testing collab review video)
15:14:15 <carloss> my apologies for how long it took for me to post the video
15:14:50 <kpdev> I have updated as per suggestion but seems the way it is used in another example there is no presence of secret_v1
15:15:31 <carloss> kpdev: ack, thanks for updating the change
15:15:31 <kpdev> @goutham can you please check PR and reply. So either that support needs to add in tempest or new REST client support needs to add in manila-tempest-pugin for secret/barbican
15:16:37 <carloss> gireesh Anoop_Shukla Sai: I have something to ask as a follow-up of the collab review: could you please check the video and share your thoughts on the change? we need your thoughts on the change as noted in the collab review
15:17:14 <Anoop_Shukla> Sure @carloss
15:17:21 <Sai> Sure carloss
15:18:19 <gouthamr> hey kpdev ack, I couldn’t find an elegant solution myself, but, it’s possible the client import like the way you’re doing is broken in tempest
15:18:47 <carloss> and apologies for the timing that meeting was scheduled. It was a holiday in India making it difficult for you to join. If I suggest a meeting in a day that's a holiday (and this is for anyone interested on participating in the community) please let me know and we can accommodate it to the most suitable time for you to participate
15:18:57 <gouthamr> kpdev: could be a bug, let’s seek reviews from the tempest cores copied
15:19:12 <kpdev> the support exist for nova, cinder, neutron.. not for key-manager
15:19:24 <carloss> > kpdev: could be a bug, let’s seek reviews from the tempest cores copied
15:19:24 <carloss> ++
15:21:34 <kpdev> ok
15:23:04 <carloss> kpdev gouthamr: thank you for the updates
15:23:35 <carloss> anything else you'd like to add to $topic?
15:24:36 <kpdev> @gotham: can you please also reply on PR for tempest cores suggestion ?
15:25:11 <kpdev> *@gouthamr: can you please also reply on PR for tempest cores suggestion ?
15:25:36 <gouthamr> sure
15:26:26 <carloss> gouthamr++ kpdev++
15:26:37 <carloss> let's switch to the next topic
15:26:42 <carloss> #topic Review focus
15:26:48 <carloss> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/manila-gazpacho-review-focus (Gazpacho review focus)
15:27:16 <carloss> I've created the gazpacho review etherpad
15:27:22 <carloss> and added updates to the changes
15:27:29 <carloss> + added a couple of changes to the bottom
15:27:40 <carloss> please add changes you'd like some attention to the list
15:30:52 <carloss> at the top I kept the specs that we carried over from the previous cycle
15:32:13 <carloss> the status are also updated for every single change
15:33:22 <gouthamr> ++ think we ought to do a review jam before PTG to clean out this list
15:33:38 <carloss> yeah, that is a good idea
15:33:51 <carloss> also can help with topics for the PTG in case we need it
15:34:41 <unluckyt[m]> Will it be necessary to add the schemas to this etherpad to get reviewed?
15:35:06 <carloss> unluckyt[m]: not necessary but nice to raise awareness :)
15:35:14 <carloss> we can group all of the schemas change under a topic
15:36:08 <unluckyt[m]> sounds good 👍️
15:36:35 <carloss> is there any change you'd like some attention at the moment? I looked at the list and can spot some things that can be a bit pressing at this time of the cycle (i.e. not RFEs, mostly bugs)
15:37:30 <carloss> if not, we can switch topics :)
15:37:44 <carloss> and we'll touch base on those pressing changes in the bug triage part
15:38:14 <carloss> #topic Bug Triage (vhari)
15:38:22 <vhari> ty carloss
15:38:22 <carloss> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/manila-bug-triage-pad-new (Bug Triage etherpad)
15:38:26 <carloss> o/ vhari
15:38:31 <vhari> \o
15:38:42 <vhari> we don't have any new bugs on the triage agenda
15:38:50 <vhari> would like to revisit #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/2054637
15:39:04 <vhari> per gouthamr request
15:39:30 <vhari> gouthamr, floor is yours :)
15:40:42 <gouthamr> hey just wanted an update here
15:40:59 <gouthamr> from the NetApp folks; we began his
15:41:41 <gouthamr> Hitting this in customer environments and we’d like to know if there’s a workaround or a timeline for a fix
15:42:06 <gireesh> sure, we will look into this
15:42:31 <vhari> ty gireesh
15:42:44 <vhari> pls have a look at #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/2122737 as well
15:43:07 <vhari> looking for any updates on both
15:43:39 <vhari> any considerations wrt either bug today?
15:44:10 <vhari> k, moving on
15:44:14 <vhari> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/2109376
15:44:44 <carloss> at the end this is a python-manilaclient issue
15:44:46 <vhari> carloss, want to share a fix for this bug https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-manilaclient/+/958921
15:44:52 <carloss> yep
15:45:16 <carloss> I've got gouthamr's blessing (ty) - gireesh kpdev could you please take a look?
15:45:33 <gireesh> sure
15:46:15 <carloss> I've also found another bug that the ensure shares change introduced/surfaced. Proposed a fix for it as well:
15:46:28 <carloss> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/manila/+/963465 (Ensure shares is not properly executed when the driver does not implement it)
15:46:46 <carloss> this can impact all backends that don't implement ensure_shares, and rely on ensure_share
15:46:59 <carloss> i can backport both when they merge
15:47:08 <carloss> but would be nice to get them in and get rid of those two bugs
15:47:50 <vhari> big catch ty carloss
15:48:26 <vhari> that's it for bugs today folks
15:48:33 <gireesh> Regarding bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/2054637, @kpdev added some logic to set the retention period by setting netapp_delete_retention_hours parm in manila.conf
15:48:54 <carloss> vhari++ ty
15:49:35 <vhari> ty for the update gireesh , will have a look
15:49:37 <carloss> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/manila/+/932912 ([Netapp] make deleted volume retention period configurable)
15:49:40 <carloss> this one gireesh?
15:51:25 <carloss> I see it is defaulting to 12 hours at the moment
15:51:39 <carloss> gouthamr: maybe this backport can help a bit?
15:51:58 <gireesh> but when we set netapp_delete_retention_hours value to "0", it is not updating on vserver. @kpdev any idea ..?
15:52:02 * carloss is remembering this change now
15:52:52 <kpdev> for 0, its not updating on vserver
15:53:26 <gireesh> min value is 1 in that case
15:53:30 <kpdev> default is 12. so it will not change default behavior
15:54:58 <kpdev> the bug filed at 02-2024 PR is merged at 12-2024. check if we can still reproduce this
15:56:48 <carloss> kpdev: thanks for checking
15:57:02 <gouthamr> my problem is really with DHSS=False
15:57:12 <gouthamr> although interested in the other mode as well
15:58:34 <gouthamr> but, ideally, if some new settings are needed, maybe document it in the NetApp Guide?
15:58:48 <gireesh> for dhss_false customer can modify this value on ONTAP, vserver modify -vserver vs_test -volume-delete-retention-hours 0
15:59:10 <gireesh> customer need to use diag mode to apply this change
15:59:29 * carloss checks time
15:59:35 <gouthamr> oh, who thought that’s a great idea
16:00:08 <gouthamr> diag mode iirc is something only NetApp folks can use :/
16:00:42 <gouthamr> ty gireesh; we’ll see if this works in our case
16:00:55 <carloss> thanks, let's continue in #openstack-manila
16:01:01 <carloss> thank you for participating
16:01:05 <carloss> have a great day!
16:01:14 <carloss> and let's wrap up :)
16:01:17 <carloss> #endmeeting