16:00:31 <gthiemonge> #startmeeting Octavia
16:00:31 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Jan 10 16:00:31 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gthiemonge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:31 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:31 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'octavia'
16:00:32 <gthiemonge> hi
16:00:50 <tweining> o/
16:00:57 <johnsom> o/
16:01:41 <oschwart> o/
16:01:54 <gthiemonge> #topic Announcements
16:02:02 <gthiemonge> ** OpenStack "D" Release Voting
16:02:17 <gthiemonge> It's time to vote for the name of the next release!
16:02:34 <gthiemonge> Check the mailing-list, there's an 'OpenStack "D" Release Voting' mail with a link
16:03:58 <johnsom> I have already voted
16:04:40 <gthiemonge> +1
16:04:45 <gthiemonge> ** Next PTG in April 2024
16:05:08 <gthiemonge> The next (virtual) PTG will take place April 8-12
16:05:21 <gthiemonge> I will register a session for Octavia
16:06:11 <oschwart> thanks
16:06:55 <gthiemonge> did I miss any other announcements?
16:07:01 <tweining> MS-2?
16:07:26 <gthiemonge> there's the election for the Board of Directors, you should have received an email if you're concerned
16:08:00 <tweining> if the resize spec should land in Caracal it should be approved this week I guess
16:08:13 <gthiemonge> right, this week is Caracal-2 milestone
16:08:39 <gthiemonge> preferably yeah, but we can be more flexible if needed
16:08:43 <tweining> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia/+/885490 for reference
16:09:18 <johnsom> There have been some client releases proposed for MS2, not sure if Octavia had one of those patches or has already done a Caracal release
16:09:20 <gthiemonge> tweining: thanks for the heads-up
16:10:36 <gthiemonge> johnsom: there were some releases for Caracal-1, but not for 2
16:11:03 <johnsom> Ok, that is probably good enough unless we have some changes we should get released
16:11:04 <gthiemonge> I don't think we have updated python-octaviaclient since ms-1
16:11:18 <tweining> yeah, probably not
16:13:46 <tweining> a bummer that the let's encrypt spec will also not make it (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia/+/877281)
16:15:11 <tweining> gthiemonge: how the ci doing? ;)
16:15:16 <tweining> +is
16:15:53 <gthiemonge> tweining: I don't know, I haven't submitted patches in 2024 :D
16:16:19 <tweining> not directly a CI issue, but...
16:16:29 <tweining> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia-tempest-plugin/+/893066 The test failures there confuse me a bit. There is an error "Another Listener on this Load Balancer is already using protocol HTTP and protocol_port 8011", but I don't see where a second listener gets created with port 8011 in test code.
16:17:01 <gthiemonge> what job exactly?
16:17:20 <tweining> octavia-v2-dsvm-noop-api
16:18:20 <gthiemonge> I can take a look
16:18:34 <tweining> thanks
16:18:39 <oschwart> yeah I wanted to ask your help with this patch, after the SCTP o-t-p has been merged, I couldn't really solve the conflicts, I think
16:19:26 <oschwart> port that are being used and I couldn't find them, like that 8011
16:19:32 <oschwart> gthiemonge: thanks
16:19:41 <oschwart> and tweining
16:20:45 <gthiemonge> note that a 409 might be normal, because we test that we cannot create 2 listeners on the same port
16:21:09 <gthiemonge> and the first test that fails is "test_http_udp_sctp_https_listener_create_on_same_port"
16:21:26 <gthiemonge> anyway, I'll take a look
16:22:34 <oschwart> thanks
16:22:36 <gthiemonge> #topic Brief progress reports / bugs needing review
16:23:19 <tweining> https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22mypy%22+author:tweining@redhat.com I have rebased and split up my typing/mypy patch. I hope this makes it easier to review and approve the improvements and fixes there.
16:23:55 <tweining> the annotation stuff is not independent of mypy checks
16:24:01 <tweining> *now
16:24:13 <johnsom> I have been on vacation, so not much to report. I am now focusing on the nftables work for SR-IOV
16:24:17 <gthiemonge> ack
16:24:44 <oschwart> this one is ready for review
16:24:44 <oschwart> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia/+/890814
16:25:06 <oschwart> it got one +2 already
16:26:48 <johnsom> I will re-review that today
16:27:22 <tweining> I have one more thing...
16:27:50 <tweining> https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22pyupgrade%22+author:tweining@redhat.com Is there still interest in my pyugrade patches? If not, I will not try to rebase those patches.
16:28:36 <tweining> I can split them up as well
16:28:48 <gthiemonge> the first one is a really huge patch
16:29:22 <johnsom> I think there is value, but yeah, those are huge patches that will take time to review
16:29:29 <tweining> I agree. I would split it up when I do the rebase
16:29:44 <johnsom> 228 files changed....
16:30:26 <tweining> yeah, probably tons of conflicts
16:35:50 <gthiemonge> let's take a look at the patches and comment in gerrit
16:36:01 <gthiemonge> #topic Open Discussion
16:36:10 <gthiemonge> any other topics you want to discuss?
16:36:22 <tweining> not from me
16:37:03 <oschwart> I have one:
16:37:30 <oschwart> maybe I should have asked before, but in your opinion, do you think we have ci capacity for this one:
16:37:34 <oschwart> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia-tempest-plugin/+/897564
16:38:14 <tweining> good point. I wanted to raise that too. I was unsure about the timeouts of non-voting jobs
16:38:30 <johnsom> I have not yet looked at that patch
16:38:57 <oschwart> yes, maybe we could talk about it offline
16:39:26 <gthiemonge> https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=octavia-v2-dsvm-scenario-traffic-ops&project=openstack/octavia-tempest-plugin
16:40:03 <gthiemonge> with this patch, we hit 2h30min
16:40:40 <johnsom> Anything close to 2 hours is risky given the fluctuating performance of the gate hosts.
16:41:16 <tweining> I guess we should split up jobs further, but I am not sure if that's worth it
16:41:23 <gthiemonge> we need to look in detail, the SCTP patches have already added a lot of new tests
16:41:29 <tweining> *could
16:41:59 <johnsom> They are important tests, we just need to figure out how to manage it
16:44:21 <oschwart> the range of that u/s job is from 2h:8m to 2h:30m with that patch
16:45:11 <oschwart> but anyway, some tests might not be necessary, (or not)
16:45:56 <gthiemonge> maybe we can optimize the tests after a review of the patch
16:46:20 <oschwart> +1
16:47:23 <oschwart> I don't have any other topic to discuss
16:49:13 <gthiemonge> ok, we can close the meeting then
16:49:18 <gthiemonge> thank you guys!
16:49:21 <gthiemonge> have a good week
16:49:26 <gthiemonge> #endmeeting