17:00:09 #startmeeting qa 17:00:10 Meeting started Thu Apr 10 17:00:09 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mtreinish. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:11 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:13 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 17:00:22 Hi who do we have here today? 17:00:30 o/ 17:00:47 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting#Proposed_Agenda_for_April_10_2014_.281700_UTC.29 17:00:51 ^^^ Today's agenda 17:00:52 o/ 17:01:14 o/ 17:01:42 well I guess it'll be a quicker meeting today 17:01:47 but let's get started 17:01:58 #topic Summit sessions (mtreinish) 17:02:10 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Juno-QA-design-summit-topics 17:02:18 so I just wanted to bring up the summit sessions again 17:02:26 the deadline for submissions in the tool is the 20th 17:03:03 I was planning to discuss the sessions people put on the etherpad the meeting after the deadline 17:03:17 so I just wanted to remind people to put things in the tool too 17:03:56 if no one has any questions about that we can move on to the next topic 17:04:03 mtreinish: ok 17:04:23 #topic Blueprints 17:05:13 So I think we'll hold off on discussing the specs review until sdague is around (he said he'd miss the first part of the meeting) 17:05:23 mtreinish: actually, I'm free at the moment 17:05:27 oh ok 17:05:33 then go ahead 17:05:49 here is the branchless-tempest qa-spec draft - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86577/ 17:06:21 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86577/ 17:06:31 it's a summary of what's been discussed, as well as a bunch of specific scenarios. I was hoping to get rounds of feedback today on it. 17:07:14 yep I'm working on some comments on it 17:07:31 that'll be a good one of the first 4 to get merged 17:07:50 sdague: Do you think a "plan for havana" should be part of that or separate? 17:08:12 sdague: I made a few comments about it in review. 17:08:13 dkranz: I feel like havana is still up for debate relative to the amount of work it would be 17:08:24 so I think that would be a second qa-spec 17:08:57 this is the basic path for icehouse, then we have the decision on whether we believe backport to havana is useful to do before havana expires 17:09:02 sdague: That depends. It could be that just skipping what does not work would be enough to start. 17:09:31 dkranz: definitely 17:09:46 dkranz: actually, you want to take the pen on the havana spec, as you've got most of the data 17:09:57 sdague: And upstream is willing to discard releases much more rapidly than many users are so we have to be careful 17:10:02 sdague: Yes, I can do that. 17:10:55 great 17:11:14 sdague: I will do both that and no-admin spec before EOD tomorrow. 17:11:19 #action dkranz to write up qa-spec on havana/stable testing with tempest master 17:11:24 sounds good to me 17:11:53 that's all I had unless there are questions 17:11:59 ok, I wanted to point out that sdague moved all the open non-high prio bps on lp back to new from whatever status they were at 17:12:25 in preperation for using the specs repo for Juno 17:12:35 but that still leaves 4 open high prio bps 17:12:38 for Icehouse 17:13:26 I think we can close 2 of them soon after Juno opens 17:13:36 the unit test one I plan to close at release 17:13:53 and the neutron full gating one should be turned on soon after Juno opens 17:14:06 sounds good 17:14:17 and andrea has a spec for the multiauth already 17:14:27 so that just leaves: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/tempest-heat-integration 17:15:06 sdague: do you know what the status of that is? 17:15:09 yeh, I think once we open the qa-specs repo for more general consumption, we should ask the heat folks to redo that as a spec 17:15:20 it's not really specific enough to track at this point honestly 17:15:39 ok 17:15:42 makes sense 17:16:07 does anyone else have any blueprints they wanted to bring up or discuss? 17:17:09 ok then let's move on to the next topic 17:17:17 #topic Neutron testing 17:17:23 mlavalle: are you around? 17:17:26 hi 17:17:34 are there any updates on neutron testing? 17:18:03 we have continued making progress with api testing. ASt this point we have merged 20 pathcsets out of 28 we are tracking 17:18:23 e also recovered the 5 patchsets that were abandoned and they are being actively worked on 17:18:51 so we are in good shape to complete the coverage we defined at the beginning of Icehouse 17:19:14 this week I have also been working with yfried on a plan for scenario tests for Juno 17:19:32 we want to create a blueprint with the scanerios we want to implement in Juno 17:19:50 mlavalle: great, please submit that to the qa-specs repo, that's how we're doing review on these 17:19:52 mlavalle: yeah you can go ahead and push a spec to the qa-specs repo for that when you're ready 17:19:55 mlavalle: Great! 17:20:08 and would like to have a session in Atlanta to review them with the team and get a buy in from both the Neutron and Tempest teams 17:20:32 once we achieve that, we will send an email to the ML inviting people to implemet the specified tests 17:20:35 mlavalle: Please add it to the etherpad 17:20:44 and track them throuout Juno 17:20:56 Yes, I will add the session to the summit etherpad 17:21:00 mlavalle: ok well propose the session in the tool but also add it to the etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Juno-QA-design-summit-topics 17:21:00 mlavalle: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Juno-QA-design-summit-topics 17:21:11 and will bring the proposal to the Neutron IRC meeting next Monday 17:21:33 that's all I have 17:21:47 mlavalle: ok cool, thanks 17:21:57 does anyone have anything else to discuss about neutron testing? 17:22:37 ok, then lets move on 17:22:42 #topic Heat testing 17:23:03 so I've seen a few heat patches in progress recently 17:23:24 sdague: you were the one who asked for this to be a regular topic 17:23:33 so do you have any updates? 17:24:34 stevebaker: is there anything worth mentioning on the heat tempest front? 17:25:31 mtreinish: there are a few in flight 17:25:31 ok well I guess we can move on then :) 17:25:37 but nothing major right now 17:25:41 sdague: ok 17:25:55 #topic Bugs 17:26:20 So I haven't looked at the numbers lately but I was doing a little triage earlier this week 17:26:28 it seems pretty tame 17:26:40 does anyone have any bugs that they'd like to bring up? 17:27:34 ok then let's move on 17:27:39 #topic 17:27:40 Critical Reviews 17:27:48 well I failed there... 17:27:54 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86265/ 17:27:54 #topic Critical Reviews 17:28:19 I have one today too: 17:28:21 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86174/ 17:28:38 I have a couple that only need one more +2 to merge 17:28:49 afazekas: I think there is an oslo thing to do that 17:28:53 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/66259 17:28:55 save and reraise or something like that 17:29:08 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/66541 17:29:10 mtreinish: It does the opsite as I remember 17:29:33 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/66259 17:29:39 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/66541 17:29:43 s/opsite/opposite/ 17:29:49 afazekas: ok I'll take a closer look 17:30:47 mlavalle: I'll put those on my list for today 17:31:00 thanks! :-) 17:31:06 Does anyone else have any reviews? 17:32:04 ok then let's open up the floor 17:32:09 #topic open discussion 17:32:09 #link old https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84533/ 17:32:42 #link old https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78345/ 17:33:21 ok does anyone have any topics they would like to discuss? 17:34:33 ok well then I guess we'll call it a meeting early today 17:34:35 thanks everyone 17:34:53 this was a quicj one 17:34:56 #endmeeting