00:02:57 <gmann> #startmeeting qa
00:02:58 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Nov 14 00:02:57 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
00:02:59 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
00:03:01 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'qa'
00:03:04 <gmann> who all here today ?
00:03:23 <kopecmartin> I am, hi o/
00:03:23 <masayukig> hi
00:04:16 <gmann> hi, let's start
00:04:22 <gmann> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting#Agenda_for_next_Office_hours
00:04:27 <gmann> agenda ^^
00:05:03 <gmann> #topic Announcement and Action Item (Optional)
00:05:17 <gmann> we had PTG last week which will talk about in next section
00:05:34 <gmann> #topic OpenStack Events Updates and Planning
00:06:15 <gmann> feedback forum notes are captured in this etherpad #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-forum-qa-ops-user-feedback
00:06:32 <gmann> PTG #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/shanghai-ptg-qa
00:06:54 <gmann> I will summarize the discussions in ML by this week.
00:07:08 <masayukig> ++
00:07:13 <masayukig> Thanks!
00:08:33 <gmann> #topic Sub Teams highlights (Sub Teams means individual projects under QA program)
00:08:49 <gmann> Tempest
00:09:29 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/q/project:openstack/tempest+status:open
00:09:32 <gmann> open review
00:10:00 <gmann> kopecmartin: your cleanup cli fix is merged?
00:10:26 <kopecmartin> gmann: yeah, the one regarding admin manager yes, but we wrote others :)
00:10:43 <gmann> kopecmartin: ok, we can review those, link ?
00:10:47 <kopecmartin> for example this one if you can take. a look https://review.opendev.org/#/c/692795/ Delete network quotas
00:11:29 <gmann> kopecmartin: can we delete the quota ?
00:11:42 <gmann> it might reset the env quota.
00:12:09 <kopecmartin> hmm, we do the same with volume and nova quotas
00:12:38 <gmann> is it ?
00:13:39 <kopecmartin> it should be safe because cleanup will touch the project quotas only if the project will be deleted as well .. for example if the project is in saved_state.json, the quotas will remain with the project
00:14:28 <kopecmartin> what's interesting with quotas is, that if the project is deleted but quotas not, the quotas will remain in the database with no chance of removing it .. only by accessing the db directly
00:15:04 <gmann> yeah, project level quotas which is going to delete is ok. but if that is system level quota (which might not be the case now but with unified limit things it can be) are something Tempest should nto touch
00:15:09 <gmann> anyway I will check that
00:15:35 <kopecmartin> gmann: ok, that's all I'm asking :) thanks!
00:15:44 <gmann> sure.
00:15:53 <gmann> Patrole
00:15:53 <kopecmartin> i have also this patch for cleanup: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/694064/
00:15:57 <kopecmartin> sorry
00:16:32 <gmann> kopecmartin: thanks. i am worried about unit tests for cleanup if we can do or add that in gate job
00:16:54 <gmann> kopecmartin: idea is to run cleanup CLI in some of the gate job and check if everything work fine.
00:17:12 <kopecmartin> ok, i'll have a look
00:17:38 <kopecmartin> it's true that cleanup is covered only by unit tests, no gate jobs :/
00:17:50 <gmann> kopecmartin: thanks. because unit test night not be applicable or complex for many cleanup changes but if we run on some job then we can make sure we are not breaking anything
00:18:05 <gmann> kopecmartin: thanks. I will add your name for this items :)
00:18:22 <kopecmartin> gmann: ok .. i have one last patch i'd like to discuss
00:18:26 <gmann> sure
00:18:27 <kopecmartin> this one https://review.opendev.org/#/c/692375/
00:18:53 <kopecmartin> it's a remake of another patch (per afazekas suggestion), see comments
00:19:51 <gmann> this one ? #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/615558
00:19:58 <kopecmartin> gmann: yes
00:20:25 <gmann> both are same or different ?
00:20:40 <kopecmartin> both are trying to solve the same problem
00:20:49 <kopecmartin> first one using a new option
00:21:24 <gmann> ok, what is the issue it solve
00:21:36 <gmann> if you can elaborate and then we can take that to review
00:22:19 <kopecmartin> the issue is testing radosgw by swift tests
00:22:32 <kopecmartin> the endpoint is slightly different in that case
00:22:50 <kopecmartin> and the patches are trying to make tempest to realize that
00:23:35 <kopecmartin> the info should be summarised in the releasenote: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/692375/1/releasenotes/notes/Add-new-filter-to-tempest.lib.auth.py-dc4225766bd2e0ff.yaml
00:23:35 <gmann> 'Ceph's RadosGW has a 'swift' prefix in its API ' from bug
00:23:47 <kopecmartin> eys
00:23:48 <kopecmartin> yes
00:24:10 <gmann> is it not customize API and not upstream API ? i am not sure API url path is different per backend for swift
00:24:33 <gmann> I remember of this bug and not sure how Tempest can support such API
00:25:28 <gmann> I would like to get feedback from swift team (mattoliverau or tim) to answer on having different path for capability API.
00:25:29 <kopecmartin> well radosgw (in my understanding) should 'mock' swift in a ceph deployment .. therefore it would make sense to test it by swift tests
00:25:50 <kopecmartin> sure, i can ping them
00:25:57 <gmann> kopecmartin: but Tempest is not the right place to tests radosgw
00:26:41 <gmann> Tempest needs to run on APi endpoints registered in keystone. it can be anything but API path cannot be changed from service side
00:26:52 <gmann> i will comment on those review
00:27:15 <kopecmartin> noted, i'll deep more into that, thanks for the feedback!
00:27:34 <kopecmartin> *dig more
00:27:38 <gmann> any other review or fix you would like to bring ?
00:27:49 <kopecmartin> gmann: no, this is all for now :)
00:27:54 <gmann> ok, thakns
00:27:58 <gmann> let's move next
00:27:59 <gmann> patrole
00:28:44 <gmann> no much updates for this  only things is we discussed in PTG about it to add in keystone and neutron gate.
00:28:52 <gmann> any other sub team updates ?
00:29:25 <masayukig> nothing from my side
00:29:36 <gmann> #topic Bug Triage
00:29:41 <tosky> did you have any time to discuss the grenade job patches during the PTG?
00:29:44 <tosky> uh, too late
00:29:58 <gmann> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack_qa_tempest_2019_bug_review
00:30:41 <gmann> we discussed to start the triage rotation. I will update the same in my PTG summary email
00:31:03 <gmann> tosky: yeah, we did as part of community  goal. moving grenade job is priority before that goal is started.
00:31:13 <tosky> in parallel, I'd say
00:31:23 <gmann> I will plan to have a common review with zuul team on that
00:31:45 <gmann> tosky: goal is something we need to discuss on tc channel, it is accepted as pre-approved goal for V cycle
00:31:51 <tosky> ok
00:32:14 <tosky> not U? Ok, let's discuss it in a more appropriate time-slot
00:32:15 <gmann> but grenade zuulv3 is priority irrespective of goal things
00:32:19 <gmann> tosky: yeah
00:33:09 <gmann> #topic Critical Reviews
00:33:28 <gmann> any more critical review than what we discussed?
00:33:49 <kopecmartin> not from my side
00:34:06 <masayukig> nope
00:34:40 <gmann> ok.if nothing else we will close today office hour.
00:34:49 <masayukig> sure, thanks!
00:35:01 <gmann> thanks all for joining.
00:35:04 <kopecmartin> thank you
00:35:06 <gmann> #endmeeting