15:00:14 #startmeeting Mistral 15:00:15 Meeting started Mon Dec 4 15:00:14 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is d0ugal. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:16 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:18 The meeting name has been set to 'mistral' 15:00:28 Hey - anyone around for the Mistral meeting this week? 15:04:31 o/ 15:04:40 Hey bobh 15:04:56 bobh: Nobody else has joined, so I was just about to cancel the meeting :) 15:05:08 dobson: lol - ok - guess I didn't miss anything 15:05:18 d0ugal: sorry 15:05:22 bobh: no, nothing :) 15:05:28 d0ugal: one quick question 15:05:30 bobh: do you have anything you want to discuss? 15:05:32 Sure 15:05:54 d0ugal: I ran into an issue with adhoc actions that need an action_context in the base action - appears to be broken 15:06:14 there was a bug opened last year that claimed to be fixed but I added a test that fails so looks like it's not 15:06:21 just wondering if it's a known issue? 15:06:31 bobh: Do you have a link to the bug? 15:06:48 d0ugal: one sec 15:08:51 https://bugs.launchpad.net/mistral/+bug/1568909 15:08:51 Launchpad bug 1568909 in Mistral "execution of ad-hoc actions based on std.mistral_http always fails" [Medium,Fix released] - Assigned to Renat Akhmerov (rakhmerov) 15:10:35 o/ 15:10:41 apetrich: Hey 15:10:50 sorry my calendar is still with the wrong time for this meeting 15:11:02 bobh: reading :) 15:11:07 me 2 15:11:20 d0ugal: np - it took a bit of digging 15:11:20 o/ 15:11:43 apetrich: in Google calendar you can set it to GMT without daylight savings. 15:12:59 bobh: right, I understand now 15:13:16 bobh: that action is weird, it has a special case, so I am not that surprised it is broken with ad-hoc actions :) 15:14:02 d0ugal: that figures 15:14:40 d0ugal: I tried injecting the action_context in the prepare_inputs of AdHocAction but then validation failed with an unexpected input 15:14:52 bobh: the patch that claims to have fixed it is a huge refactor. so kinda hard to know what it did. 15:15:22 bobh: fwiw, I have a patch that changes how this action works, I think it will be much nicer: https://review.openstack.org/520348 15:15:39 d0ugal: right - and there is no existing test so no way to verify that it works 15:15:42 but I have been blocked landing it by tripleo (I need to find a solution for this) 15:16:37 oh! There has been a promotion of the tripleo packages, so it may be able to land now 15:16:39 * d0ugal rechecks 15:18:08 d0ugal: that patch would definitely fix my problem 15:18:40 Yeah, I hope so 15:19:10 bobh: I guess it would be good if we could add a test case to show the problem and then we can verify it gets fixed more easily. 15:20:01 d0ugal: your patch changes the signature of mistral_http to not require the action_context, so we would need another base action that requires the action_context I think 15:21:51 bobh: what is action_context actually needed for? 15:22:29 d0ugal: I don't need it - I was just trying to use mistral_http as a base for an adhoc action and that's where I ran into the problem with action_context 15:22:30 bobh: the new version in my patch uses the new action conctext that is passed to the run method 15:22:37 Right 15:22:59 So why would we need another base action that requires the action_context? 15:23:05 That is the bit I don't follow 15:23:47 essentially MistralHTTPAction just adds some extra headers, I've moved that from the __init__ to the run method. 15:23:50 d0ugal: to reproduce the issue with adhoc actions from a (now custom) base action that requires the action_context param - unless that is going away completely and it always comes out of the run context, which is a better solution anyway 15:24:02 aha 15:24:05 I see 15:24:12 I think it is better to just remove it completely :) 15:24:17 if the action_context param is deprecated there is no issue 15:24:49 great 15:24:57 bobh: if you could test/review that patch it would be very useful. 15:25:05 d0ugal: will do - and thanks! 15:25:21 There is one -1, but I am mostly ignoring it :) 15:25:29 d0ugal: lol 15:25:55 (I didn't think it was a helpful review) 15:26:00 d0ugal: I don't suppose this patch would be a candidate for stable/pike 15:26:51 bobh: good question, I hadn't planned to backport it but we could discuss with rakhmerov 15:27:01 The related mistral-lib patches have already been backported to Pike 15:27:25 so it *should* be fairly easy. 15:28:21 bobh: Anything else you'd like to discuss? 15:28:23 or anyone else? 15:28:42 d0ugal: I'm good - thanks 15:29:15 apetrich: anything you want discussed or reviewed for that YAQL function? 15:30:14 d0ugal, I don't think much at this point. I'm doing the minimum there and probably when the reviews come in I will need some more discussion 15:30:21 minimum functional 15:30:23 I wanted to discuss CI, but I guess I need rakhmerov for that. https://review.openstack.org/522880 15:31:16 apetrich: sounds good. I would encourage adding the smallest possible useful function. It is always easier to expand it later - but it sounds like you are already doing this :) 15:32:36 thrash: btw I just reviewed https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522023 15:32:58 I think we can probably end the meeting - mostly just open discussion today, but that is fine. 15:33:20 I think we should consider doing the "office hours" with Mistral - other projects do this in place of the weekly meeting 15:33:55 * d0ugal waits 1 min before ending the meeting 15:35:45 Okay, thanks everyone! 15:35:48 #endmeeting