14:00:10 <lujinluo> #startmeeting neutron_upgrades
14:00:11 <openstack> Meeting started Thu May 17 14:00:10 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is lujinluo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:12 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:15 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_upgrades'
14:00:19 <mlavalle> o/
14:00:20 <lujinluo> o/
14:01:05 <lujinluo> #topic OVO
14:01:06 <ihar> o/ I am on another meeting at the same time, so just lurking
14:01:08 <TuanVu> Hi Luo
14:01:14 <TuanVu> Hi mlavalle
14:01:16 <lujinluo> ihar: gotcha
14:01:19 <TuanVu> Hi Ihar
14:01:23 <lujinluo> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/neutron+branch:master+topic:bp/adopt-oslo-versioned-objects-for-db
14:01:31 <mlavalle> hi TuanVu, lujinluo , ihar
14:01:45 <lujinluo> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/549168/ first one seems to be really fresh
14:01:53 <lujinluo> Gerrit has not commented yet
14:02:47 <lujinluo> hungpv_: right you are. any updates on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/549168/ ?
14:03:12 <hungpv_> Hi lujinluo
14:03:56 <hungpv_> I just uploaded a patch that use gw_port
14:04:07 <hungpv_> Could you have a look at it ?
14:05:21 <lujinluo> hungpv_: i think i am a bit confused. are you adding Router as a synthetic field of Port?
14:06:42 <hungpv_> Actually I'm trying to get gw_port as an attribute of Router.
14:07:02 <hungpv_> Just not sure how to do it correctly
14:07:17 <njohnston> o/
14:07:25 <hungpv_> So I'm trying a way as updated patch
14:07:40 <lujinluo> hi njohnston !
14:08:16 <lujinluo> well, foreign key is what you add to synthetic field
14:08:53 <lujinluo> i think you should consider adding port as a synthetic field of Router, so that you can call router.gw_port to load port info?
14:10:37 <lujinluo> i will review it more closely after gerrit posts any result
14:10:42 <lujinluo> now move to next
14:10:55 <lujinluo> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507772/
14:11:12 <lujinluo> TuanVu: i see that you rebased it on ihar's patch?
14:11:23 <TuanVu> yes
14:11:27 <lujinluo> but it seems consistant queries are still not passing
14:12:41 <TuanVu> yes, because ihar's patch focuses on constant queries for networksecuritybindings & externalnetworks
14:12:59 <ihar> yes rbac is still there to solve
14:13:02 <TuanVu> the remaining failed test of constant query is because of RBAC
14:13:04 <TuanVu> yeah
14:13:30 <TuanVu> btw, after rebasing my patch raised 3 new failed unit tests related to PortBindingLevelDbObjectTestCase
14:13:45 <lujinluo> yeah
14:14:02 <ihar> interesting. we need to look into this. (I will be avail on Monday for that)
14:14:32 <TuanVu> thank you in advance, Ihar :)
14:14:44 <TuanVu> btw, it’s awesome to see that Ihar’s patches are green at this moment, thanks a lot for your great work, Luo
14:15:13 <lujinluo> well, speaking of that. i did nothing, except for pep8 issue and rebading on ihar's other patch..
14:15:54 <lujinluo> and since the portbindingleveldb fails, we need to dig deeper
14:16:23 <TuanVu> yeah, it looks like because of the new changes in test_base
14:16:48 <TuanVu> but I'm not sure 100%
14:16:48 <lujinluo> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/566750/ next is the patch about PortBindingLevel
14:17:10 <lujinluo> it is green for now, but based on information on TuanVu 's patch. we may need to revisit it
14:18:41 <lujinluo> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/565358/ next is non-refetch patch
14:18:41 <ihar> well that other patch mainly enables tests and it passes, so I would expect an issue to be in the failing patch but yeah we can check
14:19:39 <lujinluo> yeah, but we are having chained dependences here. we'd better to check the root as well
14:20:48 <lujinluo> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/568693/ next is new from njohnston
14:21:03 <lujinluo> i roughly went through it..
14:21:50 <mlavalle> nice njohnston, you ramping up
14:22:25 <njohnston> Yeah, I am having issues getting a testing environment set up on my personal machine
14:22:31 <njohnston> so I pushed up changes so they would be saved
14:22:32 <lujinluo> yeah, very thankful!
14:22:58 <njohnston> definitely want to start contributing to the OVO work
14:23:20 <TuanVu> that's awesome, njohnston
14:23:51 <njohnston> thanks!
14:23:58 <lujinluo> cool!!
14:25:23 * njohnston has nothing else to add at the moment
14:25:43 <lujinluo> i think i will comment on it tmr
14:26:00 <lujinluo> cause i still see session manipulations in the file with subnet
14:26:09 <lujinluo> that may be the reason UTs are failing
14:27:03 <lujinluo> we do not have any other updated patches since last week
14:27:14 <njohnston> I would appreciate your insight.
14:27:50 <lujinluo> mlavalle: for this patch, i think it is very close to merge https://review.openstack.org/#/c/414251/
14:28:01 <lujinluo> so i did not rebase my portbinding ovo upon it
14:28:34 <mlavalle> lujinluo: it is. slaweq last comment is really a non issue
14:28:37 <lujinluo> i think i will just wait for it to get merged first, and then respin the portbinding OVO patch. will that be ok?
14:28:50 <mlavalle> that's fine
14:28:59 <lujinluo> thanks
14:29:15 <mlavalle> just be aware that over the next few days I will try to take a stab at a couple of concerns expressed by ihar
14:29:55 <lujinluo> understood.
14:30:02 <mlavalle> one is limiting the number of bindings per port to 2. That was an artificial limit that I took at face value from the guys who were working on it previously
14:30:08 <mlavalle> so we can easily remove it
14:30:28 <ihar> mlavalle: there was nothing that would block merge from me
14:30:37 <mlavalle> the other is renameing the binding attribute as bindings, to convey it is a list
14:30:50 <mlavalle> ihar: I know, I just one to take a stab at it
14:30:56 <ihar> you can rename in a follow up
14:31:06 <mlavalle> if it it turns out it is complicated I'll back off
14:31:17 <ihar> it is very easy
14:31:27 <mlavalle> ok, I'll keep that in mind
14:32:28 <mlavalle> ihar: thanks for your comments and guidance!
14:32:59 <lujinluo> cool.
14:33:06 <lujinluo> #topic open discussion
14:33:31 <lujinluo> next week would be summit week, so we should probably cancel our next weekly meeting?
14:33:44 <mlavalle> I'm fine with that
14:33:54 <mlavalle> are you going to the Summit, lujinluo ?
14:33:56 <TuanVu> no problem
14:34:02 <lujinluo> yes mlavalle !
14:34:16 <mlavalle> did you register in the etherpad?
14:34:30 <lujinluo> may i have the link?
14:34:33 <ihar> have fun!
14:34:38 <mlavalle> hang on
14:34:42 <lujinluo> i don't think i have seen it
14:34:53 <lujinluo> ihar: thank you! :)
14:35:05 <mlavalle> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-neutron-atendees
14:35:18 <lujinluo> mlavalle: thanks!
14:35:41 <mlavalle> and we will have a dinner meeting on Tuesday. Sen message to the ML yesterday with the venue
14:35:45 <lujinluo> registered
14:35:53 <mlavalle> we would love to see you there
14:36:03 <lujinluo> yes, i marked it on my calendar after reading the email
14:36:08 <lujinluo> :) i'd love to be there
14:36:10 <mlavalle> cool
14:36:20 <lujinluo> the last team dinner i joined was back in Tokyo, haha
14:37:07 <lujinluo> ok. does anyone have anything else to share?
14:37:45 <lujinluo> if not, we can buy us 20 minutes
14:38:16 <lujinluo> ok thank you everyone
14:38:18 <ihar> I won't pay but I take for free
14:38:32 <lujinluo> hahahaha
14:38:43 <ihar> cheers!
14:38:47 <ihar> again, have fun
14:38:48 <lujinluo> #endmeeting