16:00:13 #startmeeting Mistral 16:00:14 Meeting started Mon Mar 17 16:00:13 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rakhmerov. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:15 hi! 16:00:16 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:18 The meeting name has been set to 'mistral' 16:00:25 o/ 16:00:40 so, we can start our meeting 16:01:04 Today I will start this meeting and Renat will continue 16:01:19 we have the following agenda for today https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/MistralAgenda 16:01:52 and we can start from the your statuses and progress 16:02:03 yes :) 16:02:06 hey 16:03:13 enykeev, dzimine: hi! :) 16:03:38 ok, dzimine, how it is going? what about your status? ) 16:05:02 on this week I have just review several commits... 16:05:16 on my side 1) Manas has posted repeater, mainly for discussion, to decide wether we want it in 16:05:39 sorry folks, I'll join in a few... 16:05:44 2) we discussed alternatives to repeater for POC to keep POC representative 16:06:20 ok 16:06:24 and 3) catching up with TaskFlow integration questions 16:06:40 I spent the week by digging into taskflow. Also, did few reviews. 16:06:54 Renat can fill up with details. 16:07:21 so, and what about the taskflow? 16:08:19 we are ready to implement some initial integration with taskflow? 16:08:46 Lets ask Renat; we agreed that we need a prototype of integration to better understand it. 16:09:10 ok 16:09:25 NikolayM: what about your status? 16:10:41 dzimine: any idea what the architecture will be for the taskflow prototype? should we start discussion of that somewhere? 16:11:05 I didn't put up any code last week, did the reviews, and looked at task flow code to understand it and to be able to reason about the prototype. 16:11:41 we discussed task repeater with Renat and how to implement it better (and also technical details) 16:12:52 i'm still working on implementation of the local executor. investigating how to pass the transport instance into the pecan app at the API layer. 16:13:45 m4dcoder: talk to me about this (the pecan app issue) 16:13:49 I'm glad to help 16:13:52 #info m4dcoder still working on implementation of the local executor. investigating how to pass the transport instance into the pecan app at the API layer. 16:14:29 #info dzimine discussed alternatives to repeater for POC to keep POC representative and catching up with TaskFlow integration questions 16:14:47 #info enykeev spent the week by digging into taskflow. Also, did few reviews. 16:14:52 Also I did some records about keystone token - find a way how to get it easier from trust and send it in headers to some Openstack service 16:15:46 #info NikolayM did some records about keystone token - find a way how to get it easier from trust and send it in headers to some Openstack service 16:16:41 Do we have plans for this week? 16:16:50 yes we need to start the discussion about the prototype. Can we have Renat and enykeev look at it for this week? 16:17:01 let's assign the action items for next week 16:17:30 From my chat with Renat and enykeev, enykeev will take a crack at task flow integration prototype. 16:17:48 I think Renat can do this. 16:17:55 ryanpetrello: let me give you the ML entry. it's already explained there. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029707.html 16:18:43 ok, enykeev, are you plan to do this on this week? 16:19:05 can we assign this action item to you and Renat? 16:19:12 yep 16:20:03 we need to decide between checking in the repeater for POC vs alternating POC, I saw the thread but didn't catch up yet. 16:20:07 have we decided? 16:20:38 #action-item: rakhmerov and enykeev will start the discussion about the prototype 16:21:02 *Mistral on top of TaskFlow prototype 16:21:42 ok 16:22:00 we have next item in agenda 16:22:03 aha, Nicolay, looks like you proposed "“repeat” optional parameter". Let's do this? 16:22:13 Alternatives to std:repeater 16:24:00 NikolayM: can you please share the link on this commit? 16:24:31 do we have any alternatives to std:repeater? ) 16:25:05 not implemented yet 16:25:16 I know that we plan to change it, let's to discuss this feature. 16:25:17 the alternative is to make 'repeat' functionality part of any task. 16:27:00 hm and how it will work? task will be in progress while we do not finish repeat action? 16:27:10 guys, I apologize 16:27:18 I'm finally here 16:27:40 tasks: 16:27:40 task1: 16:27:41 action: ns.whatever 16:27:43 repeat: 16:27:44 retries: 5 16:27:46 delay: 3000 16:27:46 *happy* 16:27:47 break-on: $.my_data != null 16:27:49 on-success: 16:27:50 task2: $.my_data != null 16:27:50 on-error: task3 16:28:39 dzimine: let's share the link to paste.openstack.org or etherpad with examples :) 16:28:52 Timur, in this approach task is responsible for repeating, not action 16:29:11 rakhmerov: we update the statuses and now discuss alternatives for releater 16:30:11 ok 16:30:15 yep 16:30:45 so my suggestion would be that we implement "repeat" property 16:31:03 yes :) 16:31:12 other options look less attractive to me for a number of reasons 16:32:17 for example, there was an option to implement HTTP_POLL action that would itself keep sending HTTP requests to Nova, for example, and finish it work when ip is ready 16:32:37 how will this work with repeating a set of tasks instead of a single task? 16:32:50 after some thinking we came to conclusion that we'd better not have logic like this inside an action 16:33:06 sec 16:33:32 because in a more or less concurrent environment we'll quickly get executor starvation 16:33:58 de facto, executors will block for a long time and system go down 16:34:12 m4dcoder, answering your question... 16:35:18 m4dcoder: the right long term approach to it IMO is enabling enclosing workflows, and making repeater a special flow construct that 1) encloses multiple tasks and 2) has properties on how to repeat the enclosed flow. 16:35:20 if we have a task that can be repeated itself multiple times with a configured delay then we can build a simple subgraph consisting of several tasks related to this repeatable task 16:35:44 it'll be possible if we use conditional transitions and are able to define break-on condition 16:36:30 yes, I agree with dzimine 16:36:32 i like the idea of the enclosed workflow. 16:36:37 yep 16:36:54 btw, we still don't have a BP for this 16:36:58 my fault 16:38:26 #action (assignee?) create a BP that describes grouping tasks by workflows 16:38:35 the whole search for alternative came from hesitation of checkin in repeater as is, because if the enclosed flow is a long term direction, the current repeater is not on this path. Thus the simple alternative for POC is to make any task 'repeatable'. 16:39:53 yes 16:40:18 actually, just a note: I don't want Manas to feel like he's doing something useless :) 16:40:30 it's definitely giving us useful information 16:40:46 and what he's done I think will be useful if we agree on that "repeat" property 16:41:52 agree with rakhmerov: the 'repetition' code can be used, it's just a place where it is right now may not be … 'final'. ;) 16:42:25 tnurlygayanov, since you're, in fact, a driver today. Did you want to discuss anything specific according to the meeting plan? 16:42:57 is there anything specific left to discuss? 16:43:31 I have just one small question but pretty important for my work 16:43:34 the task flow prototype, we touched on it a bit 16:44:01 can you clarify current plan for POC and the status of the incubation? 16:45:19 ok, two major things that are left for PoC:repeater (in some form) 16:45:34 but I think we're already close with it 16:46:16 and Nikolay started doing some things in security (proper use of trusts) that is needed to work with a real OpenStack 16:46:46 and there's some work left on actions 16:46:52 Prototype of task flow integration: my proposal is at high level (before we know better) - try to use it as library, use Mistarl as service on top, https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mistral-taskflow-prototype 16:47:48 it's not "how", I tried to describe a scope of a prototype. As for "how", once enykeev gives it a crack, we'll know better. 16:48:15 yes, guys I would suggest we leave it for now since it's a big topic 16:48:23 we'll be keeping you posted 16:48:34 mostly Kirill will :)) 16:48:47 i do xD 16:48:51 and not only posted but we'll be discussing that in an open manner 16:49:02 I have a question 16:49:19 last week I created a BP related to design of Actions 16:49:48 #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mistral/+spec/mistral-actions-design 16:50:20 Dmitri already gave his feedback and looks like we're mostly ok on this design 16:50:51 dzimine, I still need to make a couple of changes after our Friday's conversation, I remember that 16:51:02 but generally it looks ok to us 16:51:20 did you have a chance to look at it? Do you have any suggestions/comments on it? 16:51:29 it looks ok to me (I left comments on openstack-dev) 16:51:38 yes, thank you 16:51:53 If that looks ok, I'd like to crack it in PoC phase 16:51:58 partially 16:52:58 full implementation may take up to a couple of weeks but I feel like we already need to tackle some parts of it 16:53:15 can I start doing this tomorrow? 16:53:56 silence means yes? :)) 16:54:09 np :) 16:54:25 or if you need some more time to look at it then it's fine 16:55:14 ok, then I'll start working on it tomorrow 16:55:33 anything else for today? 16:56:30 let's finish then 16:56:37 thanks for joining guys! 16:56:48 bye 16:56:55 bye! 16:56:57 thanks! bye 16:57:05 #endmeeting