00:00:44 #startmeeting nova api 00:00:44 Meeting started Fri Sep 12 00:00:44 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is cyeoh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 00:00:45 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 00:00:47 The meeting name has been set to 'nova_api' 00:00:59 Hi - who's here today? 00:01:02 hi 00:01:02 \o/ 00:01:06 hi 00:01:31 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NovaAPI#Agenda 00:01:42 #topic V2.1 on V3 API 00:02:12 ok so except for bug fixes we're not going to get anymore of the v2.1 on v3 patches into Juno 00:02:27 but I think its fine for us to continue working on them and push them to gerrit 00:02:41 oomichi or I can -2 them until Kilo opens in a few weeks 00:02:59 yeah, agree. 00:03:31 but it is a little difficult to handle a bug or v2.1 patches. 00:03:36 there's still some networking related ones to port. And we need to do a pass through all of them to verify recent mergers to V2 are reflected in v2.1 00:03:57 oomichi: I think we can merge v2.1 related bug patches? 00:04:09 eg: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120328/ 00:04:47 oomichi: yea I think we wait until next week to approve 00:05:00 but should be fine through the rc's 00:05:49 maybe nova-network API should be deffered to Kilo as non-bug patches. 00:05:57 sorry for introduce those bug by me 00:06:06 oomichi: yes nova network should definitely be deferred to Kilo 00:06:24 bugs we find through tempest testing I think is ok to apply as long as they are small 00:06:43 cyeoh: oomichi: there is one more about server address for V2.1 and this has lot of file changes ~30 mainly in sample files 00:06:48 cyeoh: that is fine for me. 00:06:57 so can we release that as bug fix? 00:07:12 gmann: too big.. 00:07:45 yea agreed if in doubt, just delay it. A few weeks delay won't hurt us 00:08:04 ok. 00:08:12 but do push them up to gerrit so we can see what is going on 00:08:23 and I do like that you've been updating the etherpad with the results of your testing 00:08:24 I'm not sure that we can decide it in juno, but it is ok to post it and i will review it. 00:08:40 but but that cause backward incompatibility between V2 and V2.1 for J, is it fine? 00:09:10 oomichi_ ok. sounds good 00:09:12 gmann: yea v2.1 for juno is purely experimental and disabled by default 00:09:41 gmann: basically you are right. but it is also v2.1 bp work. 00:10:04 oomichi_ yes :) 00:10:06 gmann: that is a reason why I feel it is difficult to handle these patches. 00:10:20 gmann: juno or kilo. 00:10:53 we just didn't have enough time to do sufficient testing for v2.1 in Juno so I'm ok with it being pretty dodgy for Juno 00:11:09 we need to get it right early in Kilo though (say by K-1) 00:11:16 cyeoh: yes, agree. 00:11:19 yes 00:11:50 anything else on V2.1 on V3? 00:12:08 nothing special from me 00:12:08 there is patch for sync server external event https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108806/ 00:12:55 alex_xu: oh good catch. COuld you add that to the etherpad? 00:13:08 cyeoh, ok 00:13:19 #topic kilo cycle planning 00:13:29 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Nova_API_Kilo_Planning 00:13:51 So I've put some ideas up on what I think we should be working on API-related in Kilo 00:13:58 please feel free to add 00:14:26 Obviously completing v2.1 and tempest verification is the highest priority 00:14:38 microversion is a big topic. 00:14:55 and I suspect tempest coverage is incomplete so we might need to do some work there otherwise we'll get surprises later on 00:15:13 yes, microversions I think we will need to do in parallel from the start of Kilo 00:15:26 cyeoh: sounds good. 00:15:33 oomichi_: hopefully we can have something to talk about at summit? 00:15:57 cyeoh: yes, I also want to talk. 00:16:10 oomichi_: is the response checking in tempest for nova complete now - or do we still need more work there? 00:16:40 cyeoh: yeah, that is complete now. 00:16:59 cyeoh: I don't think we need more work for it. 00:17:04 oomichi_: cool :-) btw I won't be at the summit so you'll be speaking for all of us re: microversions 00:17:23 cyeoh: re: tempest, can we remove v3 api tests from tempest. or keep them now? 00:18:02 oomichi_: I'm tempted to say we can remove them. I guess the v2.1 tempest microversion checking will look very different 00:18:04 cyeoh: v3 api tests are disabled on the gate, it is ok to keep them at this time. 00:18:29 well perhaps we could delay until we have further discussions about microversions 00:18:39 because we may be able to reuse parts 00:19:01 cyeoh: nice idea. I agree with keeping them until discussions. 00:19:31 cyeoh, oomichi_ : i also think we can keep for re-usability if needed 00:19:44 So the other thing I listed on the etherpad was cleanups/reducing technical debt 00:20:15 and I think we should spend a reasonable time on this sort of stuff in Kilo to make life for us in the future easier 00:20:49 I am interested in jaypipes's speedup task of sample tests :-) 00:20:56 some of the unittest code is really really horrible with lots of duplicated stuff. Bits of stubs intermingled with mock etc 00:21:05 and it makes it hard to understand and debug failures 00:21:14 plus we end up with races 00:21:23 oomichi_: yes that sounds very interesting! 00:21:55 the etherpad is nice already, thanks 00:21:57 also api samples is horrible code - and generating lots of identical template and responses for server creation is silly 00:22:08 and we have gaps in what api samples are checked 00:22:48 cyeoh: I agree. I have a plan replacing sample tests with the api definition of jsonschema 00:22:49 so I think we should have a bit of a rethink about api samples and how we can autogenerate documentation in conjunction with the input validation schema 00:23:44 cyeoh: oh, conflicting idea :-) 00:24:07 the api sample tests are kind of useful in they pick up bugs which unittests don't - because they bring up a proper api server 00:24:18 so plugins not loading properly etc gets detected 00:25:00 also the json schema doesn't cover url parameters 00:25:45 but I think we need to think about how we can autogenerate a lot of the api docs because thats a horrible manual workflow at the moment 00:25:51 will we introduce response json-schema into nova? 00:26:19 alex_xu: that is a plan of Tempest from qa-core. 00:26:25 alex_xu: so I think the long term plan is to move the response json-schema tests from tempest to nova 00:26:48 alex_xu: the plan is that current api tests of tempest are moved to each project from tempest. 00:26:49 we need to setup the infrastructure to do that in Nova though (eg spinning up api servers etc) 00:27:13 cyeoh: yeah, right. 00:27:22 I'm still thinking of use json-schema to eliminate the json-format knowledge from python-code 00:27:36 and response jsonschema also are moved from Tempest to nova. 00:27:50 s/are/will be/ 00:29:08 what mean spinning up api servers? why move response json-schema into nova is long term, any block issue? 00:29:41 alex_xu so in tempest we spin up a whole devstack instance to run our tests against 00:30:04 we'll need to at least spin up a full Nova for the equivalent tests 00:30:12 i think as response schema are ready we can have plan to move those in K and start validating the response through schema 00:30:32 eg we don't want to be mocking Nova parts for the api tests 00:30:39 spin up a full nova in nova integrated tests? 00:31:10 gmann: that's true - we can apply response schema in real time and 500 if there's an issue 00:31:40 gmann: I think we should do some performance testing though or make it optional - because the overhead may be signficiant if you're say listing 1000 servers 00:31:58 cyeoh: that is a nice point. 00:32:08 alex_xu: for the ported api tests from tempest yes 00:32:16 cyeoh: the performance issue is my concern about strong validation. 00:32:29 cyeoh: yes agree. performance can be issue. 00:32:44 cyeoh: if adding it for response also, we need to check workload of it. 00:32:55 oomichi_: yep for input I think we're ok. for output I don't know. We probably should setup a small set of baseline performance tests 00:33:47 some base performance numbers would be very handy for checking that other api changes are ok too - eg lazy loading of server information etc 00:33:47 cyeoh: perfect, that seems to fit to current direction of qa-program also :-) 00:34:48 yup! 00:35:23 ok so if you have any other ideas for what we should be doing in Kilo please add them to the etherpad. For some things we'll need to organise a nova-spec 00:35:44 alex_xu: we should probably work on the api policy cleanup if we have time 00:35:52 cyeoh, yes 00:36:06 cyeoh, I wil work on it 00:36:15 alex_xu: excellent :-) 00:36:22 #topic server group quotas 00:36:38 alex_xu: moving policy is not completed now? 00:37:03 oomichi_, actually policy stuff didn't start yet... 00:37:27 oomichi_: just small bits done 00:37:28 oomichi_, the spec is pretty close, but block by v2 on v3 debt 00:37:37 alex_xu: OK, I got it. I prefer it and I hope it is written on the etherpad. 00:37:54 oomichi_, yes, will do 00:38:03 alex_xu: thanks :-) 00:38:09 oomichi_, np:) 00:38:52 PhilD has the server group quota patches which hopefully will merge before the end of FFE - I think they might not be cutting Juno-3 until Monday? 00:39:23 Anyway I'm sure he'd appreciate reviews of his patches - it'd be nice to get it merged 00:39:30 as its very very close now I think 00:39:34 cyeoh: yeah, I hope so. 00:39:42 I'm doing last testing 00:39:56 feel pretty close 00:40:02 now the gate is very busy, and maybe the patches need to be approved today. 00:40:08 http://status.openstack.org/zuul/ 00:40:16 yea 26 hours I think :-( 00:40:17 155 patches are on the gate.. 00:40:33 I think his tempest change is still 7 hours away 00:40:43 the longest patch is in 31 hours on the gate.. 00:41:00 ah its getting longer.... 00:41:18 #topic open discussion 00:41:39 does anyone have anything for open discussion? 00:41:56 found one patch that fix some broken api https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117438/ 00:42:09 but that patch need rebase 00:42:58 alex_xu: nice catch, I will review it. 00:43:04 oomichi_, thanks 00:43:05 hopefully he will rebase it soon... 00:43:41 yea... 00:43:53 alex_xu: btw, are you checking all patches on the gerrit ? you are a good catcher:-) 00:44:36 oomichi_, thanks, just found by review, not checking all the patches :) 00:45:20 alex_xu: sounds great, thanks for doing that 00:45:31 oomichi_, np 00:45:44 ok is there anything else for open discussion? 00:46:17 nothing from my side 00:46:20 that's all for me 00:46:45 yeah, good for me already. 00:46:53 ok thanks everyone. We'll end a bit early then. 00:47:06 #endmeeting