17:01:23 #startmeeting qa 17:01:24 Meeting started Thu Nov 21 17:01:23 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dkranz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:01:25 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:01:28 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 17:01:38 Agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting 17:01:46 So who is here today? 17:01:55 hi 17:01:58 dkranz: hi 17:02:19 hey 17:02:25 hi 17:02:26 hi 17:02:55 mkoderer: Here? 17:05:17 Sory, I was in the wrong channel 17:05:29 A master blueprint was created for icehouse scenario tests and it has several pointers in it. 17:05:47 Several people are adopting the approach of creating a spec in a zeroth patch. 17:06:26 Any comments about blueprints 17:06:32 ? 17:07:03 link ? 17:07:05 I created a blueprint for input scenarios for scenario tests 17:07:07 dkranz: I have 2 blueprints for icehouse… I want to make sure they are aligned with the new effort to improve Neutron testing 17:07:14 as discussed during summit 17:08:14 sorry mlavalle go ahead first 17:08:38 mlavalle: Are they created yet in tempest? 17:08:52 mlavalle: dkranz: those blueprints were put together several months ago… so I want to confirm they are aligned with the new priorities 17:09:13 mlavalle: links? 17:09:17 dkranz: t=yes they are in Launchpad 17:10:02 mlavalle: Do you mean this https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/neutron-advanced-scenarios 17:10:29 dkranz: nope, hold on a second… I have trouble with my Launchpad account 17:11:14 mlavalle: We are tracking the new scenarios in https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/add-scenario-tests-in-icehouse 17:11:24 mlavalle: which includes both neutron and other 17:12:00 mlavalle: Any good neutron scenario tests will be helpful and this blueprint should help avoid duplication. 17:12:00 Do we still need the first? I filed it before the summit, but I think it will all go under the latter 17:12:03 dkranz: so what is here is not valid anymore: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest 17:12:23 mlavalle: Not sure what you mean. 17:12:57 salv-orlando: Yes, it would be reasonable to break your blueprint into its pieces and point to from the master blueprint 17:13:22 dkranz: ok will do 17:13:40 dkranz: well, I thought that's where blueprints were registered and prioritized… if that's not the place anymore, it's fine, I just need to know it 17:13:51 salv-orlando: Thanks 17:14:19 mlavalle: THe high priority is "more scenario tests" and is tracked through the master blueprint 17:14:35 mlavalle: We did not want to manage a whole lot of blueprints 17:14:38 dkranz: cool, thanks 17:14:54 mlavalle: The new scenarios are more on a "train model" where they come in when they do 17:15:11 mlavalle: We are not assigning individual priorities and tracking them 17:15:35 Anything else on that? 17:15:38 dkranz: I have a blueprint which is a tool around scenarios, to provide multiple input scenarios: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/input-scenarios-for-scenario 17:15:59 dkranz: I think that's a bit different, I wouldn't add it into the list 17:16:32 andreaf: I agree. Looks interesting. 17:16:51 #topic Negative testing 17:17:15 So Marc and I have not had time to make much progress on this since last week. 17:17:24 We hope to do some more next week. 17:17:49 BTW, next week is US Thanksgiving holiday so many of us will not be around. 17:18:24 #topic Neutron testing 17:18:28 mlavalle: all yours 17:18:50 dkranz: well, this topic is related to my previous question 17:19:25 dkranz: sdague wrote in an emasil a few days ago that certain things needed to be finished ready for the Montreal sprint 17:20:03 mlavalle: Yes, I think he was trying to make sure that the Montreal thing was a "wrap-up" session and not a "let's start now" thing 17:20:18 dkranz: i am attending the Montreal sprint and want to know how can i contribute between now and January for it to be a success 17:21:09 mlavalle: You can look at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-summit-qa-neutron 17:21:29 dkarnz: ok, I'll take a look, thanks 17:21:38 mlavalle: There is also a need for new scenario tests. 17:21:47 hey folks, actually managed to make it late... :) (dkranz carry on, don't let me interupt your flow) 17:22:14 mlavalle: You should probably coordinate with the neutron folks mentioned there 17:22:18 dkranz: who should I talk to to coordinate scenario tests development? 17:22:19 mlavalle: markmcclain and anteaya are coordinating efforts 17:22:23 sdague: Welcome 17:22:41 I am participating but I am merely an executor 17:22:54 salv-orlando: ok, I will talk to anteaya 17:22:59 mlavalle: The master blueprint is the registry to avoid duplication 17:23:23 mlavalle: Anything else? 17:23:41 dkranz: that's all, thanks for all the answers 17:24:02 #topic Critical reviews 17:24:32 It would be great if some one could give a +A (or not) to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/55251/ 17:24:47 It is awaiting non-RH approval 17:25:01 Any other reviews folks want to call out? 17:25:25 sdague: What is the gate status? Business as usual or "no +2"? 17:25:51 dkranz: the grenade fix just landed 17:26:07 sdague: Cool 17:26:12 so... I think it's going to take a couple of hours to figure out if that makes most of the issues go away 17:26:25 sdague: OK, so we'll hold off for now. 17:26:35 I'd say hold off on tempest +A until we know 17:26:46 as there are already 50 things in the gate, and don't want to make it worse 17:26:49 sdague: I presume there will be another email from infra when things are "ok" 17:26:54 yeh 17:27:20 sdague: I think we may need to modify our gating strategy but that is not a topic for now. 17:27:27 agreed 17:27:49 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57193/ 17:27:49 ok, then 17:27:55 #topic General Discussion 17:27:57 is this change still needed ? 17:28:11 dkranz: agreed, I'm having dinner with jeblair and jog0 tonight, I'm sure it will come up 17:29:14 afazekas: Not sure 17:29:52 sdague: Can you comment on ^^^. You pushed it through (or tried to) 17:30:54 last night we were trying to sort out anything else that might help us on stability 17:31:09 clarkb and jog0 felt that was one of the things that would help 17:31:32 afazekas: You gave it a -1 17:31:33 afazekas: yes it is needed 17:31:50 1251920 is currently the biggest gate problem and 57193 works around it for now 17:32:25 So it just needs a reverify 17:32:33 dkranz: it is in the gate now 17:32:44 clarkb: ok 17:32:55 dkranz: yes because the big in the skip decorator is in Fix committed status 17:33:19 1251920 is definitely not fixed I think that should be changed 17:33:39 several other bug was also marked as duplicate of that bug 17:33:56 oh the oslo sync change marked it fixed but it didn't actually fix the bug 17:34:16 afazekas: I think that bug should be marked invalid for nova and triaged for tempest 17:34:36 clarkb: so I ran recheck to get new results, did you reverify to put it back in the gate? 17:34:45 https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1251784 and this ? 17:34:46 sdague: something else got it in the gate 17:34:49 Launchpad bug 1251784 in tripleo "nova+neutron scheduling error: Connection to neutron failed: Maximum attempts reached (dup-of: 1251920)" [Critical,New] 17:34:50 Launchpad bug 1251920 in nova "Tempest failures due to failure to return console logs from an instance" [Critical,Fix committed] 17:34:52 sdague: I am not sure what :) but it is there 17:35:07 heh 17:36:01 afazekas: I think the confusion here is we thought the nova oslo sync would fix several problems 17:36:04 This is kind of a mess 17:36:14 afazekas: it did fix 1251784 but no 1251920 17:36:18 so they need to be deduped 17:37:14 yes it is a mess 17:37:24 dkranz: it is kind of a mess, thankfully clarkb and jog0 have been unwinding it 17:37:36 I am going to start drafting up a thing in the etherpad that has been tracking it sothat we can make sense of it all 17:37:44 clarkb: Thanks. 17:37:58 clarkb: Then we can adjust the state of bugs, etc. 17:38:04 * sdague owes clarkb plenty of beer 17:38:26 Any other issues to discuss? 17:39:02 instance validation via ssh ? 17:39:03 OK, I guess we can end early today. 17:39:16 afazekas: Can you elaborate? 17:39:33 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/52870/ 17:39:59 afazekas: Looks like it is just waiting for +A 17:40:00 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/52586/ 17:40:10 afazekas: I'll look 17:40:29 sdague: thx 17:40:33 afazekas: The last is not ready for review 17:40:39 so the last jenkins success was a month ago, I'm going to recheck it 17:40:42 it is 17:40:44 and if it looks good, will +A 17:41:04 afazekas: It says work in progress and depends on an abandoned patch? 17:41:14 I have changed the default behavior to connect via the fixed ip based on sdagues request 17:41:35 if I would change the default to floating , it would pass on the gate 17:42:41 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/50337/ 17:42:43 sorry 17:42:45 restored 17:43:34 afazekas: ok, I'll look too 17:43:59 Anything else? 17:44:36 Should we cancel next week or does some one non-US want to lead? 17:45:10 o/ 17:45:28 anteaya: Yes? 17:46:46 ok, I guess that's it for today. 17:46:59 afazekas: did you vote for core adds on the public list? 17:47:16 I think you were the last tempest-core unaccounted for? 17:47:38 just responding to my name earlier 17:47:42 sorry 17:48:18 sdague: I will, thank you 17:48:45 oh I do have a comment 17:48:59 I can't make the neutron team meeting next week 17:49:18 would be great if someone could take my spot for Neutron Tempest topic 17:49:29 I will try to populate the agenda item on Sunday 17:49:32 any takers? 17:49:36 anteaya: When is it? 17:49:46 Monday at 21 utc I think 17:50:32 anteaya: I can do it 17:50:40 Weekly on Mondays at 2100 UTC 17:50:53 awesome thanks mlavalle I'll co-ordinate with you 17:51:00 that's it from me 17:51:17 ok 17:51:22 #endmeeting