09:00:51 <oomichi> #startmeeting qa 09:00:52 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Aug 6 09:00:51 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is oomichi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 09:00:53 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 09:00:56 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 09:01:11 <oomichi> hi who's here today? 09:01:18 <jordanP> o/ 09:01:19 <gmann> o/ 09:01:32 <ylobankov_> o/ 09:01:33 <dolpher1> hi oomichi 09:01:48 <oomichi> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting#Proposed_Agenda_for_August_6th_2015_.280900_UTC.29 09:01:53 <NithyaG> o/ 09:01:54 <oomichi> ^^^ today's agenda 09:02:05 <oomichi> dolpher1: hi :) 09:02:19 <oomichi> masayukig: around? 09:02:21 <dmellado> Hi, is it late for adding a topic about cirros and dhcpv6? ;) 09:02:53 <xwizard> hi :) 09:02:54 <oomichi> dmellado: that is fine, please update the wiki 09:03:02 <dmellado> oomichi: ty! 09:03:13 <oomichi> ok, let's get started 09:03:21 <oomichi> #topic Specs Reviews 09:03:31 <oomichi> Does anyone have any open specs reviews to discuss today? 09:03:44 <oomichi> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/qa-specs,n,z 09:03:51 <andreaf> o/ 09:04:18 <masayukig> o/ 09:04:29 <andreaf> oomichi: I need to update https://review.openstack.org/173334 - I'll try to do so this week 09:04:47 <gmann> oomichi: I again forgot to review your microversion spec :( 09:04:52 <gmann> ll do tomorrow 09:05:03 <oomichi> anderstj: cool, thanks in advance :) 09:05:06 <dmellado> oomichi: done 09:05:19 <oomichi> gmann: yeah, that is what I want to say, thanks 09:05:24 <oomichi> dmellado: cool 09:05:57 <oomichi> so there are not so many specs now, is it ok to go to the next topic? 09:06:32 <oomichi> ok, go to next topic 09:06:52 <oomichi> #topic Tempest 09:07:16 <oomichi> I have one item on this topic for service clients. 09:07:31 <oomichi> now we are concentrating on compute servie clients as the first step. 09:07:48 <oomichi> there are 3 topics of patches 09:07:55 <jordanP> yes, 3 topics 09:07:57 <oomichi> # https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tempest-consistent-service-method-names-works 09:08:02 <oomichi> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tempest-consistent-service-method-names-works 09:08:10 <oomichi> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tempest-service-client-return-value 09:08:18 <oomichi> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tempest-service-client-unit-tests 09:08:25 <mkoderer> hello friends, sry I am late 09:08:26 <oomichi> the first one is almost done 09:08:37 <oomichi> mkoderer: hey, good to come :) 09:08:48 <oomichi> the second is managed by gmann 09:09:03 <oomichi> gmann: can you introduce the current status? 09:09:18 <gmann> oomichi: yea, I updated on compute clients first 09:09:32 <gmann> me and jordanP just discussed those in qa channel 09:09:47 <gmann> actually unit tests and response one conflict with each other 09:10:09 <gmann> it will be good if we postponed response one and merge UT first 09:10:28 <oomichi> ok, that is good 09:10:32 <gmann> after UT patches i can just rebase mine 09:10:41 <oomichi> so we need to concentrate UT patches now. 09:10:44 <jordanP> I agree in this order. gmann is more experienced so we can quickly iterate with him after UT patches land 09:10:57 <gmann> jordanP: yea 09:11:15 <gmann> oomichi: we can review UT one fast :) 09:11:24 <oomichi> and the contributer of UT is new now, so I'd like to get more volunters for UT works. 09:11:39 <jordanP> so I am not super happy with the current UT patches, it's good start 09:11:46 <jordanP> but they don't assert* a lot 09:12:05 <jordanP> and how the unicode vs bytes strings are handled is a bit weird 09:12:16 <jordanP> I left a comment 3 days ago on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/204035/ 09:12:35 <oomichi> jordanP: so does it say that seems redundant? 09:12:39 <jordanP> my point is, if we want to test proper unicode support, then we should have some "weird" characters in our string 09:13:16 <jordanP> no I am good with "duplicating tests", one with unicode as input, one with bytes string 09:13:20 <oomichi> jordanP: ah, on nova side, validation ways are different between APIs. 09:13:53 <jordanP> but those are unit tests, Nova is "not involved", I mean, http calls are mocked 09:13:58 <oomichi> jordanP: and my concern is that these tests mislead to users when seeing Tempest tests. 09:14:15 <jordanP> oomichi, what do you mean ? 09:14:16 <mkoderer> jordanP: to test unicode fuzzy test would be helpful.. 09:14:43 <jordanP> mkoderer, that's an option and would be easy to do 09:14:52 <jordanP> mkoderer, you mean pick "random unicode char" ? 09:14:52 <oomichi> jordanP: some Nova apis denies not-ascii data as requests. 09:15:32 <oomichi> jordanP: but if including byte inputs in all tests, users misunderstand that is valid request 09:15:50 <mkoderer> jordanP: yeah, if you pick random unicode chars the tests can fail unforeseen 09:15:51 <oomichi> jordanP: but this my concern is small 09:16:53 <jordanP> oomichi, you mean't "unicode inputs" 09:16:54 <jordanP> ? 09:17:20 <jordanP> as far as I know, nova should always accept byte inputs (~ ascii) 09:17:53 <jordanP> no, no ascii, nevermind :) 09:17:54 <oomichi> jordanP: yes, unicode input also is denied on some APIs. 09:18:24 <jordanP> I think we shouldn't concider what nova supports or not, we are testing tempest clients 09:18:50 <jordanP> I don"t expect people to read the unit tests in order to understand nova's api 09:19:01 <oomichi> jordanP: yeah, I feel you are right. and validation ways also will be changed on nova side. 09:19:23 <oomichi> jordanP: so my concern was a little overkill ;) 09:19:52 <jordanP> overall i'd like more eyes on the UT patch series, so far it's been only me :) 09:20:01 <jordanP> the contributor is really reactive 09:20:01 <oomichi> so is it fine to test randome unicode data on UT? 09:20:19 <jordanP> i think it is 09:20:28 <mkoderer> jordanP: this ones: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tempest+branch:master+topic:service-client-unit-tests,n,z 09:20:33 <mkoderer> right? 09:20:35 <jordanP> mkoderer, yes 09:20:46 <mkoderer> jordanP: k, I will add them to my review list 09:20:54 <oomichi> ok, that's fine 09:21:02 <oomichi> mkoderer: cool 09:21:09 <jordanP> mkoderer, but be nice with the guy :) he's new and he has already done a good job 09:21:26 <jordanP> (I like your unicode fuzzing idea) 09:21:42 <mkoderer> jordanP: haha I am always nice (hopefully) 09:21:51 <jordanP> i know :) 09:22:06 <oomichi> ok, can we move from this service client topic? 09:22:35 <oomichi> dmellado: the next is your turn :) 09:22:52 <dmellado> Sure, first of all sorry for the late notice and I wasn't really sure where to address the topic 09:23:00 <dmellado> I've been checking this issue in cirros https://bugs.launchpad.net/cirros/+bug/1366326 09:23:00 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1366326 in CirrOS "ipv6 support" [Medium,Confirmed] 09:23:01 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1366326 in cirros "ipv6 support" [Medium,Confirmed] 09:23:02 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1366326 in cirros "ipv6 support" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1366326 09:23:21 <dmellado> where I tried to add ipv6 stateful tests to the scenario/test_network_v6 09:23:31 <oomichi> (oops, a little big earchquak here) 09:23:35 <dmellado> And I don't know if there's any current idea or status about it 09:23:57 <dmellado> but the current cirros image doesn't support DHCPv6, is there any known workaround or plan to address this? 09:23:58 <gmann> oomichi: scary for me :) 09:25:03 <jordanP> dmellado, so no support at all of dhcp v6 in cirros ? 09:25:12 <dmellado> Not as far as I know 09:25:46 <dmellado> I'm not a real ipv6 expert, but I saw only ping6 from ipv6 tools in cirros 09:25:54 <jordanP> so there's little we can do about Cirros..., not that I know at least 09:25:55 <dmellado> and was curious about how this was being done so far, only slaac? 09:26:21 <jordanP> dmellado, I see the bug report, maybe you could propose "a patch" 09:26:32 <oomichi> mtreinish recommended to user the other image on the report 09:26:57 <mkoderer> for Manila scenario test we are using other images than cirros 09:27:19 <dmellado> mkoderer: but could that be used to pass the gate later? 09:27:34 <dmellado> mkoderer: which ones, just out of curiosity? 09:27:59 <mkoderer> dmellado: the are in the gate.. gate-manila-tempest-dsvm-neutron-scenario 09:28:13 <dmellado> mkoderer: I'll take a look at it, ty! 09:28:17 <jordanP> dmellado, maybe https://github.com/openstack/manila/blob/master/devstack/plugin.sh#L97 09:28:30 <mkoderer> but fixing cirros is most propably the best way :) 09:28:33 <jordanP> +1 09:28:42 <dmellado> Yeah I do agree on that 09:28:48 <oomichi> agree with the best way 09:28:51 <jordanP> dmellado, I think your best option is to spend some time to try to submit a patch to cirros 09:28:52 <dmellado> I'll try to ping the cirros devs so they would add ipv6-tools 09:28:59 <dmellado> or submit a patch myself 09:29:06 <jordanP> at least start a thread on their mailing list 09:29:13 <dmellado> thanks jordanP and oomichi ;) 09:29:45 <dmellado> hopefully my next topic for next time wouldn't be an earthquake too xD 09:30:09 <oomichi> dmellado: yeah, I hope so. sorry about that :( 09:30:12 <dmellado> I guess that's was all from my side, so if you want you can move to the next topic, and again thanks! 09:30:19 <jordanP> np ! 09:30:30 <oomichi> ok, let's move to the next topic 09:30:32 <oomichi> #topic Devstack 09:30:55 <oomichi> does anyone have anything to discuss on devstack this week? 09:31:46 <oomichi> (sorry, I need to ask another topics of tempest before. I'd like to do it on open discussion) 09:32:20 <oomichi> ok, well if there isn't anything else lets move on 09:32:29 <oomichi> #topic Grenade 09:32:49 <andreaf> oomichi: do we have anyone from devstack/grenade team in a TZ compatible with this meeting? 09:33:08 <oomichi> anderstj: I guess no. 09:33:09 <mkoderer> don't think so 09:33:17 <masayukig> andreaf: heh, nice question :) 09:33:32 <gmann> yea, may be we can skip those topic for this TZ meeting? 09:33:46 <oomichi> ok, I will ask the teams for this time meeting later. 09:33:58 <oomichi> gmann: yeah, I think so. 09:34:14 <oomichi> ok, let's move to the next topic. 09:34:15 <oomichi> #topic Critical Reviews 09:34:34 <oomichi> does anyone have any reviews they'd like to get more reviewed? 09:35:04 <oomichi> I have one:) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/169126/ 09:35:08 <andreaf> oomichi: well it's not critical - but it's the starting point for moving cred providers to tempest lib: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/185080/7 09:35:08 <oomichi> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/169126/ 09:35:26 <jlanoux> yes 09:35:52 <oomichi> anderstj: that seems critical for me. 09:36:00 <oomichi> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/185080 09:36:01 <jlanoux> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/208481/ 09:36:12 <jlanoux> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/207913/ 09:36:27 <jlanoux> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/209144/ 09:36:30 <andreaf> oomichi: I'll review your spec today or tomorrow 09:36:36 <gmann> andreaf: that looks good, just 1 comment about updating hacking.rst 09:36:38 <oomichi> anderstj: thanks :) 09:37:06 <oomichi> jlanoux: this is penstack-infra/project-config patch. 09:37:10 <oomichi> oops, typo. 09:37:14 <oomichi> andreaf: thanks 09:37:30 <oomichi> jlanoux: can we(qa team) help it? 09:37:33 <gmann> andreaf: on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/185080/ 09:37:37 <mkoderer> andreaf: and I will review your cred provider patch.. 09:38:11 <jlanoux> oomichi: I think some of the QA guys have infra privileges and in anyway if we can push that 09:38:27 <andreaf> gmann: thanks, I'll fix that 09:38:39 <gmann> andreaf: Thanks 09:38:44 <oomichi> jlanoux: ah, the second is tempest patch. 09:38:55 <jlanoux> oomichi: and the third one as well 09:38:58 <andreaf> jlanoux, oomichi: I think only sdague from QA is in project-config-core 09:39:06 <oomichi> jlanoux: yeah, ok. I got it. 09:39:10 <mkoderer> jlanoux: what is the current state of SSH validation in general? 09:39:16 <gmann> jlanoux: i will review tempest ssh one tomorrow 09:39:52 <jlanoux> mkoderer: good - only scenario tests are left for migration - then we can improve 09:39:55 <jlanoux> gmann: thanks 09:40:39 <mkoderer> jlanoux: ok cool 09:40:54 <jordanP> another topic: have we ever concidered third party CI for tempest. We broke a 3rd party ci a few days ago, the CI tests SRIOV feature in nova. If that CI commented we would have known something was wrong. (the revert of the bad patch is here btw: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/209039/ ) 09:41:56 <oomichi> jordanP: thanks for pointing it out. will review it alter this 09:42:27 <mkoderer> jordanP: if project mirgate to templest plugin concept we could have even more coupling with 3rd ci's 09:42:35 <andreaf> jordanP: there are a lot of third part CI tests - I think it's up to the maintainers of third party CI system to decide which patches they want to monitor and test 09:42:49 <mkoderer> I am fine with 3rd CI in tempest... if they are maintained in a good manner 09:42:51 <jordanP> yeah but are we open to it ? 09:42:58 <andreaf> I mean a lof of third party CI systems 09:43:23 <jordanP> no 3rd party CI comment on tempest patchs 09:43:44 <dmellado> those 3rd party are now and then offline, would that be ok? 09:44:01 <andreaf> jordanP: we use to have some 3rd party CI systems voting against tempest - but I don't see them anymore 09:44:22 <jordanP> the problem is that we have tempest code that is never run in the Gate 09:44:30 <jordanP> like sr-iov related tests... 09:44:30 <mkoderer> andreaf: there were mostly flaky... 09:44:33 <andreaf> jordanP: I'm not opposed to them voting on tempest - but again it's something that the 3rd party system maintainers should decide I think 09:44:58 <jordanP> not voting, but maybe commenting 09:45:10 <mkoderer> jordanP: for such test we definitly need 3rd party CI in tempest 09:45:31 <jordanP> which we have, but they are silent, unless we broke them and we hear from them then :) 09:46:55 <oomichi> jordanP: how to know this problem? 09:46:59 <gmann> but only issue will be their maintenance if they are voting 09:47:09 <oomichi> jordanP: did you receive any comment from them? 09:47:35 <jordanP> oomichi, yes here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200819/ after the patch was merged 09:47:52 <oomichi> jordanP: the reverting patch doesn't contain a bug report. so I'd like to know how to work them together 09:47:54 <jordanP> gmann, they should not vote, but leave a comment 09:48:20 <oomichi> jordanP: ah, I see. 09:48:33 <mkoderer> I can talk to the NFV guys and asking about they opinion on that 09:48:39 <jordanP> oomichi, I can't fill a bug report for a system I don"t own or even run 09:48:43 <mkoderer> I will bring that up in the next telcowg meeting 09:49:45 <mkoderer> since SRV-IO is mostly driven by the telco vendors 09:49:58 <jordanP> I am fine with how things are now, but there"s room for improvement 09:50:07 <jordanP> mkoderer, yep, that would be good 09:50:13 <jordanP> mellanox seems to have a working CI 09:50:25 <oomichi> jordanP: yeah, I agree 09:50:45 <oomichi> we will face this kind of problem easily in the future 09:50:53 <oomichi> again 09:51:39 <jordanP> we really shouldn"t accept any new code that is not exercised in the Gate or in commenting/voting 3rd party ci 09:52:37 <mkoderer> jordanP: +1 09:52:48 <gmann> jordanP: totally agree 09:53:11 <oomichi> jordanP: yeah, non-opearated tests are trash 09:53:18 <mkoderer> can I give a short status to tempest plugins? 09:53:30 <oomichi> mkoderer: please :) 09:54:06 <mkoderer> so I proted all tests from manila to the interface 09:54:09 <mkoderer> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201955/ 09:54:19 <mkoderer> it need some little nits and then it's ready to merge 09:54:42 <mkoderer> I am currently a bit uncertain about the still exiting dependency of the tests with tempest itseld 09:54:53 <mkoderer> s/itseld/itself/ 09:55:12 <mkoderer> it's currently using tempest.clients, tempest.config, tempest.test 09:56:00 <mkoderer> so if tempest changes something it could break the tests in manila 09:56:25 <jordanP> ( mkoderer I see you've met Jay.Shen a.k.a the english teacher... man last time I almost lost my temper...) 09:56:29 <gmann> mkoderer: i think we have plan to move base tests class, clients in lib 09:56:41 <mkoderer> jordanP: haha :) 09:57:25 <mkoderer> gmann: yeah.. so if everyting is ready in tempest-lib the dependency should be gone 09:57:31 <jordanP> gmann, but it's now going to happen real soon 09:57:36 <gmann> mkoderer: yea 09:57:50 <gmann> jordanP: not soon :) 09:58:04 <jordanP> *yeah not soon ! 09:58:15 <jordanP> what a typo :) 09:58:18 <oomichi> I hope soon 09:58:48 <mkoderer> :) 09:58:53 <oomichi> mkoderer: so tempest-lib work is blocking your manila work now ? 09:59:51 <mkoderer> oomichi: not blocking but we have to be careful about it 10:00:10 <jordanP> it's tricky... 10:00:11 <oomichi> mkoderer: ok, I see the situation 10:00:16 <jordanP> (time is over...) 10:00:24 <oomichi> oops, thanks all 10:00:31 <mkoderer> oomichi: thx for hosting the meeting! 10:00:32 <gmann> Thanks 10:00:37 <oomichi> #endmeeting