16:01:06 #startmeeting Mistral 16:01:07 Meeting started Mon Aug 24 16:01:06 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is NikolayM. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:01:11 The meeting name has been set to 'mistral' 16:01:14 hi everyone! 16:01:20 hi ! 16:01:23 Hi everyone 16:01:26 <^Gal^> hello 16:02:08 hi, guys 16:02:23 let's start 16:02:48 #topic Review action items 16:03:24 1. rakhmerov, nikolaym: provide recommendations on how to test https://review.openstack.org/212080 16:04:04 it seems it wasn't done 16:04:22 gpaz, could you comment on that? 16:04:36 provided... I think ... Renat comment in the ticket.. 16:04:37 the patch is related to ctx in expiration policy 16:04:51 ooh, ok, I didn't know 16:04:55 I didnt have a chance to work on that probably start doing that this week 16:05:21 (in the last few day we had some demo - that include Mistral by the way) 16:05:48 cool :) 16:06:02 the buttom line renat wrote some comment I will take a look and try to use that 16:06:34 hi 16:06:36 thanks for explanation 16:06:44 2. nikolaym break down https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mistral/+spec/mistral-documentation into smaller BPs 16:06:54 this one is done 16:07:24 now there are about 8 BPs about documentation 16:07:33 <^Gal^> nice :) 16:08:05 3. rakhmerov start ML discussion about the best approach for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mistral/+spec/mistral-execution-origin 16:08:28 I don't exactly know status of this 16:08:59 but anyway, I didn't see a thread with that topic in ML 16:09:15 neither do I 16:10:33 so, let's schedule it for the next meeting 16:10:42 #action rakhmerov: start ML discussion about the best approach for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mistral/+spec/mistral-execution-origin 16:11:16 next topic - current status 16:11:22 #topic Current status 16:11:47 guys, let's tell current status 16:12:02 <^Gal^> I'm on mistral dashboard execution screen - execution update, doing good 16:12:29 I'm working on the pagination support in Mistral, have it supported on workflow and action, do some review and bug fix 16:12:29 <^Gal^> ill start the pagination thing tomorrow 16:12:37 As I wrote in the pass days I was working on internal Alcatel stuff . I need to complete the fix for bug (add test) 16:12:58 ^Gal^: if you need help, or you have question about execution pagination, please contact me 16:13:00 I've started working on the postgresql tests again. No resolution yet. 16:13:07 hi all 16:13:09 my status: working on the documentation, install guide and config guide are already on the review 16:13:10 <^Gal^> xylan_kong: thanks appreciate 16:13:14 hi rakhmerov! 16:13:14 sorry for being late 16:13:19 rakhmerov: hi 16:13:41 NikolayM: please continue 16:14:05 btw, I didn't start ML discussion yet about execution origin 16:14:20 but I have an email draft about that ) 16:14:41 my status: made several patches to fix cycles in direct workflow 16:14:56 and a couple of patches to openstack requirements and infra 16:15:24 planning to continue with refactoring and testing workflow cycles (there are still some issues in it) 16:16:09 btw, I fixed all patches related to with-items concurrency and they were merged last week 16:16:23 NikolayM: good job 16:16:45 xylan_kong: thx :) 16:17:32 next topic 16:17:41 NikolayM, I posted a bug on with-items concurrency last Friday. apparently if the concurrency is YAQL, it doesn't work. 16:18:09 ooh, interesting 16:18:25 m4dcoder, yep, I saw that bug 16:18:31 good 16:18:46 and it can really take place here 16:19:03 ok, I'll fix it this week 16:19:07 thx 16:19:11 #topic Liberty-3 progress 16:20:33 <^Gal^> Ui-wise, we have some schedule problems with task screen 16:21:04 task screen? 16:21:15 <^Gal^> yeah Liat's blueprint 16:21:20 you mean you don't seem to have time for it? 16:21:49 till the end of l-3 16:21:57 <^Gal^> it the screen I talk to you about earlier, Liat's on vacatyion 16:22:04 ooh 16:22:08 I see 16:22:16 thanks for letting us know 16:22:25 <^Gal^> sure np 16:22:29 I'll reassign it to someone else then 16:22:54 <^Gal^> sure, she had the task overview page done 16:23:02 <^Gal^> i would commit it tomorrow 16:23:17 good 16:23:54 so on that topic (L-3 progress) I exactly wanted to ask you all if you see any issues with getting your BPs/bugs done 16:24:12 should you have any concerns let us know 16:24:41 NikolayM: I see that you assigned all documentation BPs to L-3 16:24:57 is it by mistake you're really planning to get them all done? 16:25:17 ..or you're.. 16:25:33 I'll try to do them all 16:25:43 hm... you feel brave! :) 16:25:45 it's good 16:25:49 ok 16:26:11 <^Gal^> :D 16:26:22 NikolayM: please update their statuses 16:26:31 they are now all marked as "Unknown" 16:27:04 and assign all you're planning to work on to yourself 16:27:29 I reassign all on which I don't have much time 16:27:48 yep, I mark only ones I am starting to work on 16:28:35 ok, great 16:28:50 I just went over the BPs and it seems like we're mostly fine 16:29:05 we have one and a half weeks 16:29:10 it's ok 16:29:16 rakhmerov: i found some of my bps were 'lost'... 16:29:23 we need to try to push most of the patches this week 16:29:28 <^Gal^> btw, post code freeze, we don't currently have any bugs on mistral-dashboard (correct me if I'm wrong) so what should we work on after? 16:29:35 xylan_kong: which ones? 16:29:37 rakhmerov: the service api on server side and client side 16:30:00 as far as server side I guess they were assigned to l-2 16:30:33 i just can't find them among all the bps 16:30:40 ^Gal^: yeah, we can keep fixing bugs till the very end of Liberty 16:30:49 xylan_kong: it's weird 16:30:59 rakhmerov: yeah 16:30:59 let me check that later offline 16:31:05 rakhmerov: ok 16:31:43 #action akhmerov, xylan_kong: figure out the destiny of Service API blueprints (server and client side) 16:32:16 thanks 16:33:11 I actually don't have anything else to discuss 16:33:16 :) 16:33:23 does anyone have? 16:33:42 https://bugs.launchpad.net/mistral/+bug/1488157 16:33:42 Launchpad bug 1488157 in Mistral "Executions and action_executions remain unremoved after functional testing" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Lingxian Kong (kong) 16:33:47 i found this bug 16:33:52 and i'm working on that 16:34:05 for execution, i have already uploaded a patch 16:34:16 but for action execution i think i need a bp to have it done 16:34:32 bp: support action execution deletion 16:34:48 want to have it discussed 16:34:55 mm 16:34:55 to see your opinion 16:34:59 yes 16:35:17 please do discuss it 16:35:32 NikolayM: you here? 16:35:39 isn't action execution deletion supported yet? 16:35:44 rakhmerov: no 16:35:49 really? 16:35:52 xylan_kong, yep 16:36:02 but we have an endpoint for action executions, right? 16:36:09 rakhmerov: yes 16:36:18 but without deleting action 16:36:19 with no "delete" method? 16:36:28 hm... 16:36:46 NikolayM: what do you think 16:36:49 I think they should be deleted within task execution which they belongs to 16:37:07 NikolayM: but for ad-hoc actions, you can't do that 16:37:07 and the same for the task executions and workflow executions 16:37:21 ad-hoc action_execution 16:37:22 ooh, yes, correct 16:37:29 aha 16:37:30 yep 16:37:37 need to delete them separately 16:37:50 without that feature, we can't purge them all during functional test 16:37:53 I'm ok with adding "delete" method 16:38:21 ok, i'll continue to do this 16:38:24 ok 16:38:31 ok 16:39:05 it's weird that we don't have this method 16:39:11 but have it for workflow executions 16:39:18 ok, it's not a serious issue 16:39:22 just need to fix it 16:39:30 alright 16:39:36 thanks for bringing this up 16:39:40 ad-hoc action execution was added just a month ago 16:40:32 xylan_kong: just small clarification, we usually use 'ad-hoc action' term for a little bit different thing 16:40:49 rakhmerov: for testing? 16:40:52 although it may be used for separate action executions as well I think :) 16:40:52 debuging? 16:41:04 rakhmerov: oh 16:41:06 rakhmerov: i got you 16:41:20 no, we call "ad-hoc actions" those actions that we created purely in Mistral DSL 16:41:23 in YAML 16:41:33 so, i change it to 'ad-hoc action exeuction' :0( 16:41:36 it refers to action definition rather 16:41:42 yes :) 16:41:50 that's ok, I'm just clarifying 16:41:58 rakhmerov: ok 16:42:00 it can really be used like you said 16:42:08 ad-hoc action execution 16:42:19 it really means that 16:42:21 :) 16:42:31 I'd like to name it 'single action execution' 16:42:39 yeah 16:42:45 just not to confuse 16:43:37 anything else guys? 16:43:46 nothing from my side 16:44:02 <^Gal^> same as for me 16:44:08 nothing from me 16:44:13 let's end the meeting 16:44:17 m4dcoder? 16:45:05 nothing from me. 16:45:14 ok, let's end the meeting 16:45:17 thanks guys for attending! 16:45:20 NikolayM: cay you do this pls? 16:45:21 thx 16:45:22 thanks! 16:45:23 thanks 16:45:24 bye 16:45:25 #endmeeting