16:00:13 #startmeeting Octavia 16:00:13 Meeting started Wed Jan 11 16:00:13 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gthiemonge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:13 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:13 The meeting name has been set to 'octavia' 16:00:19 Hi everyone! 16:00:25 o/ 16:00:26 o/ 16:00:26 o/ 16:00:27 o/ 16:02:49 #topic Announcements 16:03:03 * 2023.1 Antelope Release schedule 16:03:12 FYI we passed Antelope-2 milestone 16:03:26 I recreated the etherpad with the priority review list 16:03:34 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/octavia-priority-reviews 16:03:46 (the link is also in the topic of the channel) 16:04:50 all the patches are not ordered yet, please prioritize the changes that you think should be higher on the list 16:05:21 I started doing that for a few patches already 16:05:50 yah Feature patches should be on top (I'll add a [feature] kw for those changes), important fixes too 16:06:49 FYI the next important event is the final release for non-client libraries (ex: octavia-lib) on Feb 9 16:06:58 (but as of today, all the octavia-lib patches are merged) 16:09:27 * OpenInfra Summit Vancouver 2023 16:09:37 the deadline for the Call for Paper is over 16:09:43 FYI johnsom submitted a proposal for an Octavia Forum! 16:09:46 johnsom: thanks! 16:10:17 I also submitted a proposal for a presentation about ovh and octavia 16:10:35 QG: oh great! 16:10:37 cool 16:11:08 QG If you would like any help/reviews/diagrams/logos we might have, please ping me. I am happy to help you 16:11:16 +1 16:11:43 johnsom: ok thanks ! 16:12:57 any other announcements? 16:13:04 yes 16:13:32 they announced the code name for the b release cycle 16:13:42 it is Bobcat! 16:13:50 right 16:14:44 Also, in case we haven't mentioned it. Registration is open for the next virtual PTG: 16:15:02 #link https://openinfra.dev/ptg/ 16:15:45 thanks 16:17:02 #topic CI Status 16:17:23 lot of new issues with tox4 in the last weeks 16:17:32 things are getting back to normal 16:18:03 important changes that fix or stabilize the CI need to be on top of our priority list 16:18:08 (I'll check the backlog) 16:20:37 #topic Brief progress reports / bugs needing review 16:21:29 gthiemonge helped me finish the python-neutronclient removal patch 16:21:58 I added it to the review priority list too 16:22:07 thanks tweining 16:22:07 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia/+/866327 16:23:16 I will take a look too 16:23:17 There's one fix for an important bug: issue with the creation of a fully-populated LB with a listener (only in SINGLE topo) 16:23:23 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia/+/868423 16:23:55 it needs to be backported when it's merged, we might create tags stable releases too 16:24:03 "tags for" 16:24:39 johnsom: rm_work: ^ 16:24:50 ack 16:25:42 I am having this one which adds the non default pools info to the lb status show command 16:25:50 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia/+/868479 16:26:09 It seems like this job won't let Zuul pass 16:26:12 oschwart: this one is interesting 16:26:23 #link https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/54a9f3db2c9a47de9c2c18f9d31a7f00/console 16:26:53 Because the lb_status got bigger (now it has non default pools too). Can I ask your help with that issue? 16:27:00 adding non-default pools breaks the tempest tests 16:27:04 They should only show up if they are attached to an L7 policy right? 16:27:40 Otherwise, they have no status because they don't exist outside of the data model 16:27:58 hmm 16:28:44 so the current behavior would be the correct behavior 16:29:19 In my opinion yes, as long as they do show up when attached to an L7, then it is behaving correctly 16:29:37 IIRC if they are not attached to a listener they do not show up 16:30:40 There it is 16:30:43 #link https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2010491 16:31:09 I tried both: one time without L7policy, just a non attached pool 16:31:33 Another time non attached pool which should be attached to an L7 and in both cases the pool info didn't show up 16:32:20 Sorry for the lack of whitespaces in the story 16:32:50 (you can use ``` to format logs and CLI output) 16:33:01 ok I will take another look at the story 16:33:11 gthiemonge: thanks 16:33:18 it might mean that only the pools in l7policies need to be fixed 16:34:10 If that's the case, what should I do with the u/s job that blocks it? 16:34:48 first we need to ensure that the story is valid 16:35:00 gthiemonge: ack 16:35:21 That's it for me for this topic 16:35:24 if the first part of the story is not valid, the commit should not break the existing tests 16:35:52 We should look at what their status is in a pool list call and decided if it makes sense to include them 16:37:57 ok then, I will contact you guys offline about this story, thanks 16:38:30 #topic Open Discussion 16:43:26 any other topics? 16:44:05 Nothing from me 16:44:47 nope 16:44:54 ok thanks! have a great day! 16:44:56 #endmeeting