17:01:17 <serg_melikyan> #startmeeting Murano
17:01:18 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Dec 16 17:01:17 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is serg_melikyan. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:19 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:01:22 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'murano'
17:01:26 <serg_melikyan> Hi!
17:01:40 <katyafervent> hi
17:01:51 <RadekPospisil> hi
17:02:04 <serg_melikyan> Hi RadekPospisil, nice to see you here :)
17:02:09 <RadekPospisil> :-)
17:03:46 <serg_melikyan> Today we have not so many attendees )
17:05:32 <serg_melikyan> #topic Agenda
17:06:06 <serg_melikyan> Unfortunately I didn't update agenda for todays meeting :(
17:06:18 <serg_melikyan> So we have pretty open agenda
17:06:29 <serg_melikyan> #1 Action Items Review
17:06:36 <serg_melikyan> #2 Open Discussion
17:07:06 <serg_melikyan> Do we have any particular topic to discuss?
17:07:13 <serg_melikyan> *any other
17:07:35 <katyafervent> Should we set the date for bug scrub and cpecification review?
17:07:41 <katyafervent> *specification
17:08:26 <serg_melikyan> I think we can discuss this during Open Discussion, and I would say it's hard to do, cause we have extensive holidays, and date will be after Jan 10
17:08:31 <RadekPospisil> Agree - I want to know when the spec review will be done ....
17:09:00 <serg_melikyan> Spec Review, you mean when spec will be approved?
17:09:07 <RadekPospisil> yes
17:09:18 <RadekPospisil> of course after review :-)
17:10:21 <serg_melikyan> Once it will contain all the details and +2 from all the participants. I think we have common agreement on fact that specs proposed by you are very important, so approval is not blocking development
17:10:39 <henarmunoz> hi all. Sorry for the delay
17:10:52 <StanLagun> hi
17:11:02 <serg_melikyan> Good evening, henarmunoz!
17:11:57 <serg_melikyan> Let's move to Action Items review and return to this topic during Open Discussion
17:12:20 <serg_melikyan> Btw we can walkthrough specs and review them during this meeting
17:12:30 <serg_melikyan> And identify what parts they lack
17:13:15 <serg_melikyan> #topic Action Items Review
17:13:45 <serg_melikyan> Not so much of them )
17:13:54 <serg_melikyan> 1. serg_melikyan, update Roadmap with a new link to the blueprint with Versioning Spec
17:13:56 <serg_melikyan> done
17:14:10 <serg_melikyan> 2. serg_melikyan, write e-mail with details about Review Day
17:14:22 <katyafervent> done)
17:14:24 <serg_melikyan> done
17:14:27 <serg_melikyan> henarmunoz, RadekPospisil had a chance to participate? )
17:14:43 <RadekPospisil> I did not received any email
17:16:01 <henarmunoz> no, sorry. I was working about the new specs
17:16:10 <serg_melikyan> Guys, did you subscribed to the mailing list?
17:16:20 <RadekPospisil> well no....
17:16:30 <RadekPospisil> I have to do it...
17:16:48 <henarmunoz> sorry, which mailing list? sorry for the question...
17:17:19 <serg_melikyan> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists
17:17:42 <serg_melikyan> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
17:17:43 <serg_melikyan> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
17:17:57 <serg_melikyan> You need to subscribe to this 2 mailing lists at least.
17:18:00 <RadekPospisil> I'm in opensrtack list only...
17:18:03 <henarmunoz> ah yes.. I am subscribed to these mainling list..
17:18:43 <serg_melikyan> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-December/052618.html
17:18:50 <katyafervent> serg_melikyan, did you send email to openstack-dev, right?
17:18:57 <serg_melikyan> katyafervent: sure
17:19:24 <katyafervent> so for developer-related discussions this list is better
17:22:03 <serg_melikyan> So it's better to be subscribed to both of them :)
17:22:26 <serg_melikyan> All development related discussion are going in this mailing-list
17:22:28 <RadekPospisil> ok, done
17:22:41 <serg_melikyan> Let's move to the specs review?
17:23:07 <henarmunoz> ok
17:23:59 <serg_melikyan> #topic Spec Review
17:24:41 <serg_melikyan> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/murano-specs,n,z
17:24:54 <serg_melikyan> This is a list of proposed specs
17:25:35 <serg_melikyan> We will go through this for rough review, identifying missing parts
17:25:48 <henarmunoz> I have only created the structure. to be completed with I have more murano knowledge, but I think I will have to change the model, api and so on :-(
17:26:54 <serg_melikyan> henarmunoz: Not sure about that, when we discussed this features on summit, it was pretty easy to implement. Something changed?
17:27:49 <henarmunoz> about the blueprint template, we agree having a new entity right? because environemtn was not the same as blueprint template. Mainly a blueprint tempalt can be instantiate any time
17:28:19 <henarmunoz> this means to create the blueprint templte entity right? plus the introduction of this concept in the api, murano python client.. . Am I wrong?
17:28:45 <serg_melikyan> Yes, but it's rather extension of current API than change :)
17:28:50 <henarmunoz> regardiing the puppet/chef staff, I think we need to includ the entity PuppetApplication and ChefApplication for the murano agent
17:29:27 <henarmunoz> yes for sure. It is just extension, I mean everything is complementary..
17:30:21 <serg_melikyan> https://review.openstack.org/141335 - let's start with this blueprint
17:30:24 <serg_melikyan> btw
17:31:42 <serg_melikyan> this link is better http://docs-draft.openstack.org/35/141335/2/check//gate-murano-specs-docs/1dd3550//doc/build/html/specs/kilo/blueprintemplate.html
17:32:40 <serg_melikyan> I think in Data Model Impact section we need to describe in details which enitity are going to be added and they relationship with other entities.
17:32:51 <henarmunoz> yes, sure..
17:33:12 <henarmunoz> also I have to work in the API section
17:33:29 <serg_melikyan> henarmunoz: I am not sure that you need review for your spec yet. Do you want to do it today?
17:33:53 <henarmunoz> It can be ok when more work has been done
17:35:36 <serg_melikyan> sure :) RadekPospisil and katyafervent asked for Spec Review (procedure when we review and approve specs for cycle)
17:36:09 <StanLagun> I wrote 2 comments on current text
17:36:12 <serg_melikyan> We can't assign date today, cause we have long holidays, and I suggest to assign date later
17:36:28 <serg_melikyan> but we can go through specs and identify what is missing
17:36:32 <RadekPospisil> what's the deadline for the review?
17:36:45 <serg_melikyan> To be assigned to K?
17:36:52 <serg_melikyan> And implemented in K
17:36:53 <serg_melikyan> ?
17:36:57 <RadekPospisil> yes
17:37:18 <serg_melikyan> End of the March, I believe
17:37:59 <RadekPospisil> ok.
17:38:49 <katyafervent> we have 2 weeks until holidays, we have time
17:39:08 <RadekPospisil> if you can identify missing pieces  it would be great - btw there are missing assignments (it has to be internally discussed) and test sections (was lazy to fill it with text that 'it will be tested' :-) )
17:39:18 <serg_melikyan> I am not sure that specs will be completely ready
17:39:30 <serg_melikyan> Specs are approved (merged) only when they are complete
17:39:37 <RadekPospisil> yes
17:39:42 <RadekPospisil> understand
17:40:06 <serg_melikyan> But we can merge CODE that related to this specs, if they are not breaking anything
17:40:44 <RadekPospisil> it would be great - we created 'fork' of murano on git-hub already :-)
17:40:59 <serg_melikyan> RadekPospisil: good way to play with Murano :)
17:41:30 <serg_melikyan> henarmunoz: how do you guys develop?
17:41:41 <serg_melikyan> also fork, or just play locally?
17:42:13 <henarmunoz> working with murano agents and plans :-)
17:42:15 <RadekPospisil> so we locally play with the code, and we are going to use the fork for sharing code in our group.
17:43:47 <henarmunoz> about the deployment of a complex application.. like for instance the hello word.. do you have an envrionment example? how can I have the application properties in the json payload, when the properties is another application (e.g. postgresql) ?
17:45:45 <StanLagun> didn't get your question. You can always extract object model JSON from murano.log. Search for "Starting processing:"
17:48:49 <henarmunoz> I am not using hte GUI, I am using the API. My paylaod is not valid, for instance I am missing database:     Contract: $.class(apps:PostgreSql).notNull()
17:49:37 <serg_melikyan> StanLagun: can you copy some payload from deployment of a few related apps?
17:49:45 <henarmunoz> how can specify that the database property for the application io.murano.apps.java.HelloWord is another application. I couldn't find this informaiton in the documentation...
17:50:57 <henarmunoz> It is for deploying services...
17:51:00 <henarmunoz> payload="{\"instance\": {\"flavor\": \"m1.small\", \"image\": \"centos2\"," \             " \"?\": {\"type\": \"io.murano.resources.Instance\",\             \"id\":  \"instanceid\"}," \             " \"name\": \"vmname\"}, " \             "\"name\": \"git\", " \             "\"repository\": \"repository\", " \             "\"dbName\": \"dbName\"," \             "\"dbUser\": \"dbUser\"," \             "\"dbPassword\
17:51:24 <serg_melikyan> henarmunoz: better to post to the paste.openstack.org
17:51:32 <StanLagun> http://paste.openstack.org/show/151957/ . See lines 41, 45, 64
17:51:43 <henarmunoz> I managed to work iwth simple deployment (just tomcat, or git), but not a complex one
17:51:53 <StanLagun> You can try to deploy this from UI once to see object model
17:52:44 <StanLagun> in short you either reference object by id or by embedding object definition (as Environment.applications is set here)
17:53:31 <henarmunoz> they were several applications in your example. So I have to do the same, and use the id for the database reference right? thanks
17:53:57 <StanLagun> ID of object (that is '?'/'id')
17:54:13 <StanLagun> yes
17:54:56 <henarmunoz> ok
17:57:13 <serg_melikyan> RadekPospisil: I would recommend to migrate whole development cycle to the OpenStack way, otherwise you will have many problems later. Like big commits that no one reviews
17:57:40 <StanLagun> serg_melikyan: +1
17:57:54 <RadekPospisil> agree - we were not sure if we can merge before spec are approved
17:59:23 <serg_melikyan> Let's move to our channel and continue discussion.
17:59:26 <serg_melikyan> #endmeeting