17:00:05 #startmeeting qa 17:00:06 Meeting started Thu May 25 17:00:05 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is andreaf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:07 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:09 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 17:00:32 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting#Agenda_for_May_25th_2017_.281700_UTC.29 Today's agenda 17:00:50 Hello, who's here for the meeting today? 17:00:54 o/ 17:01:10 o/ 17:01:36 o/ 17:01:38 o/ 17:02:37 oomichi and chandakumar cannot make the meeting today 17:02:48 ok let's start 17:03:47 So first on the agenda, I wanted to welcome zhufl to tempest-core! 17:06:17 heh, it's a bit late in china... 17:09:26 andreaf: did you drop? 17:10:07 Also I sent an email proposing to move the 9:00 UTC meeting to 8:00 UTC, which is probably not very relevant for folks in this meeting today 17:10:09 but please let me know if you have any opinion about the proposed changed 17:10:10 change 17:10:12 #topic Previous Meeting Action review 17:10:16 Actions from last week where for me to send an email to the ML about the proposed change in the meeting schedule, which I did 17:10:21 and one for blancos / felipemonteiro to update the spec for patrole to a patrole folder, which was also done 17:10:22 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/461140/ 17:10:23 patch 461140 - qa-specs - RBAC testing multiple policies 17:10:24 #topic PTG 17:10:27 About PTG, it may be a bit early but the format for next PTG is being defined, so if you have ideas / opinions about how it should be structured now it's the time to speak :) 17:10:29 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/117369.html ML thread by thierry 17:10:36 The idea for QA is that day1 and 2 we will have a help room where we will take turns to be there and help people with questions / issues on QA topics 17:10:37 who's not in the help room can roam around in the WG rooms in parallel 17:10:39 day 3,4,5 we can have QA sessions and time to hack on something 17:10:41 mtreinish: indeed probably 3am or so 17:10:43 ping 17:10:59 * andreaf gets out of the hammock and looks for better wifi signal :P 17:11:26 Any comment on the PTG? 17:12:08 andreaf: it's an interesting idea. We'll see how it turns out 17:13:30 yes it's hard to say in advance - but I think it's interesting for a lot of us to be in WG sessions - so if we can rotate in the help room hopefully it will work 17:13:51 ok moving on 17:13:57 #topic Gate stability 17:14:40 the gate was broken shortly because of an issue in oslo.i18n, but it's now back online and it looks stable enough 17:15:11 #link https://goo.gl/ptPgEw 17:15:16 our classification rate is 2% for gate failures 17:16:09 clarkb: heh I'll have to check the exact numbers :) 17:16:51 clarkb: yeah not many people are pushing e-r queries 17:17:14 clarkb: oh I got it know e-r classification rate 17:17:30 granted are failure rate is much lower than it has been for a while so keeping the classification percentage up is harder 17:17:36 that said I think things are relatively stable, its just that the issues we do have we aren't catching/tracking well 17:17:41 but 2% is not good, we're basically catching nothing 17:17:48 whcih probably means well get bit before too long 17:18:57 clarkb, mtreinish: I've not hit failures recently - I wonder if we should setup a kind of rota, like for bug triage? 17:19:16 clarkb, mtreinish: a weekly task to keep an eye on unclassified failures? 17:20:30 I can setup a calendar for that and send a message to the ML - if we get volunteers I'm more than happy to help them getting started 17:21:52 you're silence tells me that either by bouncer is failing again or you don't believe this will help :P 17:21:59 but I'm going to give it a try ;) 17:22:49 andreaf: it's worth a try I guess. I just know in the past people seem confused by the process of getting a bug out of a gate failure and then opening an e-r query 17:23:47 mtreinish: yes but perhaps if we offer mentoring it will help 17:24:20 mtreinish, clarkb: do you have a recorded session about troubleshooting the gate? 17:24:21 I could add the link 17:24:37 mtreinish: and mriedem have one somewhere iirc 17:24:50 andreaf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa67J6yMYZ0 17:24:57 thanks 17:25:22 #action andreaf send an email about classification rota and mentoring 17:25:52 Also about gate stability, I proposed enabling ssh validation by default on master in devstack 17:25:59 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/458678/ devstack patch 17:26:05 patch 458678 - openstack-dev/devstack - Enable ssh validation by default 17:26:10 look at those young hunks 17:26:13 so full of hope 17:26:25 I'd like more opinions on that 17:26:46 heh, the first thing that stood out to me was how much more hair I had back then 17:26:51 heh that was Vancouver 17:28:20 anything else on gate stability? 17:28:21 #topic Spec reviews 17:29:54 There are a few outstanding specs - I did not have time to read them yet 17:30:05 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/qa-specs,n,z 17:30:24 andreaf: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173334/ 17:30:25 patch 173334 - qa-specs - Add bp tempest-resources 17:30:32 that is one back from the dead :) 17:31:13 heh - oomichi took it over some time ago but then we had other priorities 17:32:20 mtreinish: there was no comment / complaint in that area in the user feedback session at the summit, but maybe the right audience for that was missing... 17:32:59 mtreinish: at the moment that's a a bit low in my list of priorities since we have limited bw and a few urgent things we need to close around stable interfaces 17:33:00 andreaf: yeah I'm not sure that was the right audience, it was kind of a quiet session 17:34:45 #link https://review.openstack.org/349730 is a bit dead in the water, since we decided to make the current test.py stable 17:34:46 patch 349730 - qa-specs - Add bp tempest-stable-fixtures 17:35:01 so I should probably abandon that 17:36:21 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443504/ HA testing could use some reviews 17:36:22 patch 443504 - qa-specs - Added spec for high availability testing 17:36:26 if we can create common tools for non functional type of testing it's a win for everyone 17:37:49 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/461140/ also needs reviews, I already mentioned this one 17:37:50 patch 461140 - qa-specs - RBAC testing multiple policies 17:38:05 anything else on specs? 17:38:56 #topic Tempest 17:39:09 Anything to discuss on Tempest? 17:39:28 andreaf: are we still spewing deprecation warnings on normal tempest runs? 17:39:33 or did all the fixes merge 17:39:48 mtreinish: I think they all merged (3 of them) 17:39:55 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/466344/ 17:39:56 patch 466344 - tempest - Add option for whether the cloud supports floating... 17:40:05 that fixes my complaint from the feedback session 17:40:16 andreaf: ok, we should be more careful in the future 17:40:22 mtreinish: but i haven't check if there is any deprecation warning left 17:40:39 deprecation warnings are to signal users, and we shouldn't emit them as part of normal operation 17:40:50 unless its because of a config or cli flag or some other user choice 17:41:20 mtreinish: heh good point - otherwise people will get into the habit of ignoring them 17:41:46 mtreinish: I'm halfway through the review of your patch - it looks good to me so far 17:42:27 chandakumar has been working on a sanity check for tempest plugins 17:42:55 the idea is to have a job that takes any known plugin and one by one it tries to install it, run tempest init and tempest run -l 17:43:12 we will maintain a blacklist of known broken plugins 17:43:42 it's not guarantee that those will work 100% but at least they will not break other plugins at install/ list time 17:44:31 and this helps us knowing which plugins are kind of dead and which are actually in use 17:44:54 andreaf: ok, but why is that a tempest job? 17:45:25 mtreinish: because it helps us when doing changes to tempest to see if we break something 17:45:37 mtreinish: since plugins use non stable interfaces 17:46:00 andreaf: except the vast majority of those failures will be caused by setup issues in the plugins 17:46:46 mtreinish: the discovery bit should detect broken imports 17:47:12 ok, so we're adding a job to tempest to catch broken imports in other projects? 17:47:33 still seems out of place to me 17:47:39 mtreinish: yes because we may break those import by changing things in tempest 17:48:20 mtreinish: if we had all stable interface ready earlier we would not need this 17:48:33 mtreinish: but I think it's fair to try and keep an eye out for plugins that depend on tempest unstable interfaces 17:48:37 i can't get patrole to work in py35-backed environment due to import error, although I can't re-create the issue locally with devstack USE_PYTHON3=True, still investigating 17:48:59 felipemonteiro: that sounds like more of a py3 incompatibility 17:49:02 mtreinish: at least as long as we finish the work on stable interfaces 17:49:19 andreaf: I still think we're just inviting a bunch of random failures into the gate 17:49:33 mtreinish: it's not going to be a voting job 17:49:37 but as long as it's not voting (I'm a hard -2 on making it voting) all we're doing is throwing away a node 17:49:57 felipemonteiro: do you have a link to logs? I can take a look 17:50:30 #link http://logs.openstack.org/17/465717/22/check/gate-tempest-dsvm-patrole-py35-member-ubuntu-xenial-nv/cb7cc13/console.html 17:50:33 and thanks :) 17:50:51 mtreinish: I don't think it's thrown away - we're finding issues in the plugins which also helps us in turn to write better docs on how to write them 17:51:29 mtreinish: my guess is that after the job becomes stable and we have enough stable interfaces we can just remove it 17:51:46 ok there are 9min left 17:53:13 #topic Patrole 17:53:33 felipemonteiro, blancos: anything on patrole other than the issue above ^^^ 17:53:47 ? 17:53:55 yeah release notes for 0.1.0 release 17:54:03 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464072/ 17:54:04 patch 464072 - patrole - Prepare release notes for release 0.1.0 17:54:59 so we can then move forward with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/463578/ 17:54:59 patch 463578 - releases - Release Patrole 0.1.0 17:55:44 felipemonteiro: heh sorry I didn't manage to look at that yet I will do later today 17:56:22 that's it from me...then once we get that in we can start removing some deprecated tests that tempest has already 17:56:59 felipemonteiro: +A 17:57:33 #topic Critical reviews 17:57:44 any other review that needs attention? 17:57:53 #link https://review.openstack.org/467366 17:57:54 patch 467366 - openstack-dev/devstack - Add a function to get an available random port 17:58:01 #link https://review.openstack.org/459451 17:58:01 patch 459451 - openstack-dev/devstack - Use uwsgi for glance-api 17:58:51 #topic Open Discussion 17:59:41 yes, i have a question regarding patrole gating 17:59:48 go ahead 18:00:02 in other services, i'd like to know what your/qa cores thoughts are? 18:00:15 time's up though 18:00:21 perhaps in qa room 18:00:22 it's time 18:00:23 #endmeeting-qa