17:00:29 #startmeeting qa 17:00:30 Meeting started Thu Jun 8 17:00:29 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is andreaf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:31 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:33 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 17:00:57 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting#Agenda_for_Jun_8th_2017_.281700_UTC.29 Today's agenda 17:01:07 who's here for the meeting today? 17:01:19 o/ 17:01:19 o/ 17:01:26 o/ 17:01:58 \o 17:02:01 o/ 17:02:21 \o/ 17:02:52 nice we have a good attendance today :) 17:03:12 ok let's start 17:03:46 I just wanted to mention again that zhufl joined tempest core - welcome to the team! 17:03:58 #topic Meeting time 17:04:40 about the meeting I created a patch in irc-meetings to move the 9:00 UTC one to 8:00 UTC, mostly to help folks in APAC 17:04:54 Next week will be the first meeting on the new time 17:05:02 no change to this meeting at 17:00 UTC 17:05:37 #topic Previous Meeting Action review 17:05:40 andreaf: new timing is going to early for me in afternoon :-) 17:06:15 chandankumar: hopefully that helps ^_^ 17:07:25 The only action item from last meeting was to try and setup a rota for the categorization work on the recheck page 17:07:40 I haven'd done that yet, so I will set an action again 17:07:59 #action andreaf send an email about classification rota and mentoring 17:08:08 #topic PTG 17:09:17 For the PTG it's still some time to go, but I think the structure is pretty much going to be now to what Thierry proposed 17:09:50 If you see something does not work for you with the current plan please speak now, later it will become more and more difficult to change things 17:10:23 Remind me, what are the dates for the PTG? 17:10:38 Sept 11 to 15 I believe? 17:10:43 in Denver 17:11:21 it's going to be 2 + 3, the initial 2 days for working groups and help rooms for horizontal teams 17:11:44 3 days for project dedicated spaces, including QA 17:12:20 andreaf: Awesome, thanks! 17:12:24 dustins: will you be there? 17:12:39 I believe Manila is not attending the PTG, in favor of a virtual one this time around 17:12:53 And the possibility of doing design sessions at the Summits in the future 17:13:00 So I honestly don't know 17:13:07 ok 17:13:36 same here. 17:13:55 design sessions at the summit sounds like the old model 17:14:03 andreaf: but i will let you know my status in advance. :-) 17:14:34 andreaf: Yeah... There are some good reasons, the big ones being overlap with Cinder sessions and including more of our APAC contributors 17:14:53 heh right makes sense 17:15:01 Still kinda feels like going rogue, but at least there's a good reasoning :) 17:15:31 dustins: it's not so easy to get to Denver from outside the US I guess - it's going to take me to layovers to get there 17:16:05 andreaf: Yeah, that's a haul for sure 17:16:40 ok moving on 17:16:48 #topic Gate stability 17:17:55 A couple of weeks ago the categorization rate was really low as clarkb pointed out - it's a bit better now but still below 50% for gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full-ubuntu-xenial 17:18:21 So that's something we need to get better at - I have to send out an email for that (see action point) 17:18:50 Otherwise I'm not aware of any major issue going on right now 17:19:31 I've been throwing patches at it. I think mriedem and sdague too which has helped 17:20:18 clarkb, mriedem, sdague: thanks! 17:20:34 clarkb: e-r patches? 17:20:55 yes 17:21:25 there have also been a few bugs that caused a bunch of gate fails that got fixed quickly (libssl-dev and a nova thing) that aren't being tracked properly IO don't think 17:21:56 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471304/ sdague has a patch up to add a script to e-r to create a boiler plate for new bugs that looks handy to me 17:22:50 #link https://goo.gl/ptPgEw Gate failure rate 17:23:09 clarkb: there were a couple of spikes in the rolling avg, I guess the bugs you mentioned 17:24:09 ok anything else on gate stability? 17:24:32 #topic Spec reviews 17:24:47 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/qa-specs,n,z open specs 17:25:59 I don't have anything specific on specs 17:26:23 ok I guess next topic 17:26:29 #topic Tempest 17:26:39 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/tempest+status:open Open Patches 17:27:08 Anything on Tempest anyone? 17:27:58 minor question i was wondering whether test_change_admin_password is run anywhere, couldn't find a gate that didn't skip it 17:28:44 felipemonteiro__: not sure, I think it may require xen to work 17:28:54 felipemonteiro__: we can check in openstack-health 17:29:07 k ill do that, thanks 17:30:58 ok I don't have anything specific on Tempest this week, so let's move on 17:31:09 #topic Patrole 17:31:24 There are a few points here from you felipemonteiro__ - the floor is yours 17:31:57 few questions were reserved for gmann, i'll skip those. 17:32:30 was wondering qa's thoughts on backwards-compatible gates, i.e. for n-1 n-2 in patrole 17:33:40 which is what tempest currently does with its newton and ocata gates 17:33:56 felipemonteiro__: I think it would be good to have 17:34:12 felipemonteiro__: it might be a pain for the work policy in code, but it will help discover deviations in behaviour 17:34:50 felipemonteiro__: Patrole is branchless right? 17:35:05 andreaf: yes our 0.1.0 release is just a tag, not a branch 17:35:59 felipemonteiro__: so from my POV setting up those gates is the right thing to do 17:36:22 andreaf: regarding the n-1/n-2 gates, those were my thoughts, though it'd require a bit of research from our own to see how much policy has changed (i don't mean policy in code, just policy definitions/naming) 17:37:04 which i don't *think* has been too much 17:38:01 felipemonteiro__: right, well since patrole did not run on older release you may want to introduce those gates incrementally i.e. as soon as we start working on Queens setup the N-1 and when Rocky starts setup N-2 17:38:29 felipemonteiro__: but if it works as is I think it's fine to introduce them both now 17:39:07 andreaf: my management would prefer now just because they want to run patrole master against newton release, but wanted your input first 17:40:15 felipemonteiro__: well if it works as is I guess it will be fine, but you'll need to discuss this with the stable maintenance team as well since it would require adding the patrole job to stable/ocata and stable/newton 17:40:26 otherwise changes there might break patrole gate 17:40:43 unlikely as it is, I think it would be the right thing to do 17:40:47 felipemonteiro__: ^^^ 17:41:16 andreaf: i see, thanks we'll look into that. 17:41:41 that's it from me, other items were targetted at ken'ichi/gmann but they're not here this week 17:41:56 felipemonteiro__: oh wait, Patrole tests run only in Tempest gate for now, right? 17:42:29 heh gmann will never be in the 17UTC meeting :) 17:42:29 andreaf: you alluding to symmetric testing? they only run in our repo right now 17:42:34 oh, i see 17:43:00 felipemonteiro__: right thst's what I meant 17:43:28 felipemonteiro__: so you will not necessarily need gates on stable branches 17:44:08 felipemonteiro__: however if something does not work as is you'll have to make a good case to get things changed in Newton :) 17:45:00 andreaf: thanks for the information, your other plan of incrementally introducing it in the future might be a better alternative, we'll have to do some research 17:45:24 i did add a nova spec for patrole gating targetted at queens release, i'll see how that goes 17:45:55 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471145/ Nova spec for policy testing 17:46:00 felipemonteiro__: cool thanks 17:46:05 ok moving on 17:46:20 #topic outreachy 17:46:41 it will be a quickly one :) 17:47:20 so, I would like to introduce you folks, lwanderley, she is an intern in the outreachy cycle: https://wiki.gnome.org/Outreachy/2017/MayAugust#Accepted_Participants 17:47:26 #link https://wiki.gnome.org/Outreachy/2017/MayAugust#Accepted_Participants 17:47:43 hi, everyone :D 17:47:56 welcome lwanderley! 17:47:58 and I'm and rodrigods( I think you know him, more than me :P) will be her mentors 17:48:17 so the idea is to having a new job to test keystone with LDAP support 17:48:48 we already have some functional tests for this case, but we need to fix a couple of things on devstack support for LDAP and creating this job 17:49:31 so, she might be around the #openstack-qa asking for helping some times :) 17:50:19 that's it 17:50:47 we have folks in a lot of different time-zones, so we should be able to help in the openstack-qa channel :) 17:51:01 ++ 17:51:26 devstack folks are mostly in the US so that should be a good fit 17:51:37 that's great 17:51:53 andreaf, yeah, it's closer to our time zone, so it will be great for us 17:52:57 ok, about 8 minutes left in the meeting 17:53:21 moving to the last few topics 17:53:24 #topic Critical reviews 17:53:55 any review that requires urgent attention? 17:54:45 #topic Open Discussion 17:56:05 ok I'll give you back five minutes of your life ^_^ 17:56:13 thanks for joining the meeting today 17:56:20 ty 17:56:20 #endmeeting