17:00:17 #startmeeting qa 17:00:17 Meeting started Thu Mar 12 17:00:17 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mtreinish. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:18 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:21 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 17:00:31 hi, who's here today? 17:00:44 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting#Proposed_Agenda_for_March_12th_2015_.281700_UTC.29 17:00:44 o/ 17:00:49 ^^^ Today's agenda 17:00:51 o/ 17:00:54 hi 17:01:18 o/ 17:01:48 hi 17:02:00 andreaf, afazekas, sdague, jogo: courtesy ping 17:02:14 o/ 17:02:21 o/ 17:02:24 o/ 17:02:26 ok let's get started 17:02:31 #topic Specs Reviews 17:02:43 are there any qa specs reviews to bring up this week? 17:03:52 heh, I guess not 17:04:03 ok then let's move on 17:04:16 #topic Blueprints 17:04:18 o/ 17:04:23 o/ 17:04:35 are there any blueprints open that someone would like to discuss? 17:05:33 well I guess I'll mention the test accounts continued bp 17:05:51 we've landed the first part of that, which is roles support for the accounts.yaml file 17:06:12 now all 3 cred_providers can provide accounts with arbitrary roles (including admin) 17:06:49 the only big piece left for that bp is the network part, so we'll be able to express which network should be used w/ tenants 17:07:24 are there any other bps to bring up? 17:07:27 andreaf: ^^^ ? 17:07:32 perhaps a couple of updates 17:07:37 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/multi-keystone-api-version-tests 17:07:49 I prepared all patches needed to complete that 17:08:26 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:+bp/multi-keystone-api-version-tests+status:open,n,z 17:08:41 once those three are merged we should be able to close the bp 17:09:29 andreaf: the bp also lists the v3 in the stress tests has that been taken care of too? 17:10:00 mtreinish: yes it does 17:10:31 #NOTE: we need to handle token skopes in-order to pass with etc/policy.v3cloudsample.json 17:11:27 afazekas: I don't think that is part of the bp - I would consider it as an extra 17:11:33 afazekas: else that bp will never end 17:11:41 :) 17:12:39 The other bp is tempest-lib migration - there as well we're almost ready to move token clients and auth to tempest-lib 17:13:12 andreaf: are there any reviews needed to help push that around? Or is just the act of doing the migration left? 17:14:30 only the migration 17:14:35 ok 17:14:47 afazekas: do you think supporting the v3 policy will require changes to auth.py? 17:15:33 afazekas, mtreinish: I think auth should be general enough so that it should work just by making changes in tests and base classes / tenant isolation 17:16:24 andreaf: yeah I think since jamielennox add support for the domain scopes it should be good to go 17:16:27 andreaf: I am unsure about this , looks like Jamie Lennox has more idea about this 17:16:57 ok I will check with jamielennox if he's happy, and prepare the migration in parallel 17:17:13 andreaf: even if there are future changes needed after we make the lib migration we can do them. We just have to worry about backwards compat 17:17:37 sure 17:18:08 ok, are there any other bps to bring up? Otherwise let's move on 17:18:12 regarding the resource-cleanup bp, it's amost done, there are a few patches outstanding only 17:18:27 andreaf: just some last split patches? 17:18:55 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tempest+branch:master+topic:bp/resource-cleanup,n,z 17:19:47 mtreinish: my patches in that list however still need a bit more work 17:20:10 mtreinish: there're more about optimizing things once the split is complete 17:20:17 s/there/they 17:20:41 andreaf: ok 17:21:08 ok, in the interest of time let's move on 17:21:09 mtreinish: the ssh-auth-strategy is still WIP, but getting close 17:21:14 andreaf: ok cool 17:21:25 let me know if any assistance is needed on that one 17:21:53 mtreinish: yes we will need reviews once the first set of patches is ready 17:22:11 #topic Devstack 17:22:20 dtroyer: still around? 17:22:25 yup 17:23:19 I've refreshed the venv patches and added a global USE_VENV control, series starts with https://review.openstack.org/162783 17:23:36 ok, cool. Need to take a lot on that series 17:23:37 it's passing with it turned off, running now with it turned on 17:23:57 btw, the operator meetup put a different spin on this 17:24:08 as they apparently largely want the global requirements sync 17:24:09 I've forgotten if we have taled about how to run this ongoing…do we need a new job template? 17:24:18 heh, nice 17:24:33 yeh, we should make another job I think 17:24:49 dtroyer: yeah it makes sense to have it as a separate job, even if just running on devstack 17:25:00 dtroyer: Are you planning to support to use just single venv with allowed site-packages ? 17:25:08 ok, lets work through that later, I'm a lost boy in project-config repo 17:25:23 dtroyer: sure I can give you a hand with that 17:25:32 afazekas: it's totally configurable. right now it's a per-project venv, but can easily be changed from local.conf 17:26:46 the other thing I have to add on the venvs is my patch to cache them in nodepool landed 17:26:49 dtroyer: I am ok with the currently proposed patches, but I would like to have a simple single opt for this, instead of configuring it per project 17:27:01 still waiting on jogo's d-g patch to use it: 17:27:08 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/160933/ 17:27:12 mtreinish: right, thanks. have images with that enabled been used yet? 17:27:16 ok 17:27:42 dtroyer: build_wheels is being called according to the nodepool logs so it should be on the images 17:27:50 we're just not using it yet 17:28:16 afazekas: looks like we're going to need to talk about what the defaults will be still…it's much better to develop it this way though as it has exposed a lot of interesting little assumptions 17:28:58 sdague: you have +2 on that repo right? 17:29:07 yeh, I'll look 17:29:08 also, I've planned to wait to start backporting until master is going…is that still a good plan? 17:29:21 dtroyer: yes, lets get master sorted first 17:29:29 ok 17:30:13 dtroyer, I comment what is my vision here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161161/ , a single venv with use site packages is very close to that 17:30:42 afazekas: heh, use-site-packages isn't in our plans atm…I'll go read that though 17:31:16 ok, is there anything else to discuss on devstack? 17:31:25 getting away from the packages is actually the current direction… 17:31:30 that's all from me 17:32:16 ok, then let's move on 17:32:28 #topic Grenade 17:32:48 is there anything to talk about in the world of grenade this week? 17:32:54 * mtreinish looks at jogo 17:33:01 * andreaf has to drop off now 17:33:36 I think EmilienM had grenade questions 17:33:43 sorry javelin questions 17:33:47 I'm doing floating ip in javelin2: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/163622/ 17:33:55 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/163622 17:34:03 maybe my patch is not correct, I would love some feedbacks 17:34:07 mtreinish: also https://review.openstack.org/163773 17:34:16 EmilienM: ok I'll take a look after the meeting 17:34:18 will try to look at both later today 17:34:21 we may want to be able to run javelin in multi node env 17:34:27 mtreinish: awesome, thx. 17:34:38 EmilienM: is it just a patch to use floating ip for ssh when needed? 17:34:49 mtreinish: for ping 17:34:56 but I use the ssh flag 17:35:08 ah ok 17:35:22 in a multi node env, you can't reach namespace 17:35:29 so I implemented floating IP 17:35:33 so you can test the ping 17:35:50 EmilienM: ooh, you're using javelin in a multinode env? 17:35:55 and I do it of the use_floatingip_for_ssh flag is a true 17:36:04 mtreinish: yes 17:36:08 we use it for QA 17:37:15 EmilienM: interesting, I'll probably ping you at some point for more details, because I'm curious :) 17:37:22 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/163773/ 17:37:24 mtreinish: anytime 17:37:35 ok is there anything else to discuss on grenade? 17:38:48 #topic Neutron shared network testing 17:39:01 this topic has been deferred from the past 2 meetings 17:39:12 I'm not sure who put it on the agenda though 17:39:25 afazekas: for some reason I thought it was you? :) 17:39:27 me 17:39:37 heh, ok go ahead 17:40:14 So at the moment looks like I had to -2 this change https://review.openstack.org/#/c/124998/ 17:40:29 because testing shared networks in tempest is not safe 17:40:56 Looks like the only way to make it safe is ALWAYS specifying a network at nova boot 17:41:10 Does anyone has any objections against it or better solution ? 17:41:20 afazekas: sigh, yeah that's been a big long standing bug 17:41:40 hogepodge was hitting it earlier this week just against an existing deployment 17:41:47 It is 3th proposed patch for shared net test if I am counting correctly.. 17:42:13 there is a patch up somewhere which starts to address this as a short term fix (by adding the network id to each of the create server helpers) 17:42:49 the long term solution is the test accounts bp and the ssh auth improvements one 17:42:59 mtreinish: AFAIK not yet, we need to fix at least in 3 places: api,scenario,boto 17:43:24 probbaly we also need to specify network for the tests where we omited it and we boot the vms without network 17:43:47 unless we cen specify the `No NETWORK` explicitly on the api 17:43:54 long term, this kind of scenario testing should be done in the project tree in a test-controlled environment imho 17:44:30 marun: maybe for testing the shared networks explicitly, but we also have this issue running a tempest test against an env with a share network 17:44:39 so it needs to be fixed anyway 17:45:02 marun, can you support shared net testing in neutron in similar way as tempest without this issue ? 17:45:19 afazekas: yeah IIRC that was what the patch was trying to do just adding the network id everywhere to prevent this 17:45:21 I'm just saying that not all testing is best done without control of the env 17:45:42 I think it might have been from bnemec, but I can seem to find it 17:46:03 Oh, the multiple networks thing? 17:46:05 yeah 17:46:23 Yeah, I ran out of steam on that. :-( 17:46:23 mtreinish, So adding net id everywhere is an agreed and good solution ? (yes/no) 17:46:48 tempest's mission to do just that suggest that this kind of testing doesn't belong there 17:47:11 afazekas: definitely 17:47:43 afazekas: yeah it'll be the short term fix. Long term we should consolidate the create server helpers and just do it there 17:47:48 bnemec: do you have the link? 17:48:03 I'm looking, but I didn't own the original change so it's a little tricky to find. 17:48:53 bnemec: no worries, yeah I had trouble finding it too 17:49:11 ok, is there anything else on this topic? 17:49:48 mtreinish: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61037/ 17:49:57 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61037/ 17:49:59 great thanks 17:50:03 np 17:50:14 mtreinish: can we make sure we have time for the last two topics? 17:50:28 dkranz: yes I was going to do those next 17:50:39 If nova not able to do it already, probbaly I will ask for an API option to allow to specify booting vm without network.. 17:51:21 #topic Can we freeze development of Neutron api tests? (marun) 17:51:41 afazekas: heh, I thought you could do that, but I dunno 17:51:48 So, we have a snapshot of the api tests running as part of the neutron api job. 17:52:31 mtreinish: now we do it implicitly in tempest , the tenant has zero network in some cases 17:52:46 My intention is to update from tempest regularly until we can designate a point to freeze development in tempest (not remove, just move development focus to neutron tree). 17:53:13 mtreinish: What needs to happen to freeze work in tempest and move the focus to neutron? 17:53:24 marun: are you talking about freezing new tests or all changes in api.network? 17:53:40 mtreinish: The latter. 17:53:57 mtreinish: maybe 'manual changes in api.network' is a more apt description 17:54:10 mtreinish: until the tests are removed we may need to maintain in tempest 17:54:21 mtreinish: but I'd like to see manual changes take place in neutron first 17:54:35 mtreinish: make sense? 17:54:36 that might get tricky because there are a number of in flight refactors going on right now and I'm sure they'll probably touch it 17:54:49 mtreinish: when will those refactors be done then? 17:55:01 mtreinish: I'm not asking for an immediate freeze, but I do want to set a timeline 17:55:18 Do we want to enforce the tempest api tests should not be changed at the same time (change), when the code also changed in-order to enforce api compatibility ? 17:55:23 the 2 big bps I'm thinking of probably not until right up until the release 17:55:44 afazekas: we intend to enforce that in the neutron repo, yes. 17:56:23 marun: what I'd really like to say is we can freeze everything when all the pieces you need are in the lib 17:56:29 marun, imho it is sufficient 17:56:36 but we can freeze new test dev sooner 17:56:44 marun: +1 17:56:52 mtreinish: How long would we be freezing test dev for though? 17:57:32 mtreinish: I think we have new features landing this cycle that need new tests before release. 17:57:48 mtreinish: To clarify, the bp's in question are about moving functioanlity to tempest-lib? 17:58:06 marun: no they're refactors needed before we can consider doing that 17:58:22 for things like the cred_providers and ssh/guest verification 17:58:31 mtreinish: is there a reason that couldn't be done external to test freeze? 17:58:48 mtreinish: we're talking api tests only 17:58:56 so ssh/guest doesn't seem applicable 17:59:09 cred_providers, I'm also not sure why tests would be affected 17:59:13 marun: that's what I was saying it could be a staged thing we stop adding new api tests and do them in neutron, then everything in that dir, then go through the deletion procedure 17:59:15 test infrastructure, sure 17:59:30 mtreinish: ah, ok. 17:59:33 marun: they both will change how servers and other resources will be created 17:59:49 at least to a certain extent 18:00:01 mtreinish: so the refactor work would mainly be about keeping the tempest-maintained tests running rather than modifying their logic 18:00:12 marun: yeah 18:00:30 mtreinish: so we should be able to take over responsibility for maintanance ahead of the refactor being completed? 18:00:35 Are we planning to migrate the test ids ? 18:00:35 anyway we're at time, I'll add this and the other topic to the agenda for next week 18:00:41 afazekas: we'll have to 18:00:48 that migration to tempest-lib should happen soon 18:00:55 thanks everyone 18:00:59 mtreinish: have a few minutes in #qa? 18:01:01 #endmeeting