17:00:33 <amaretskiy> #startmeeting Rally
17:00:33 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Apr 28 17:00:33 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is amaretskiy. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:34 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:36 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'rally'
17:00:42 <amaretskiy> hi all
17:01:48 <amaretskiy> let's start our meeting
17:03:29 <amaretskiy> #topic Rally QA week
17:04:28 <meteorfox> QA -> as in quality assurance, or questions/answers?
17:04:49 <redixin> questions/answers week =))
17:04:49 <amaretskiy> we have an internal plan for QA week
17:05:10 <amaretskiy> redixin please say what are your tasks within QA week
17:05:25 <redixin> my?
17:05:30 <amaretskiy> yes :)
17:05:46 <redixin> i should set up fuel job on Mirantis Rally CI, and I have a question
17:05:53 <amaretskiy> according to the plan that was written by boris-42
17:06:09 <amaretskiy> what is that question?
17:06:16 <redixin> rally is refusing to launch task if there no openstack deployment
17:06:39 <redixin> so we should fix this first
17:06:51 <amaretskiy> good question
17:07:02 <amaretskiy> actually I'm working on this problem
17:07:18 <rvasilets_> o/
17:07:36 <redixin> so, is there any progress on using fuel client without openstack cloud?
17:08:02 <amaretskiy> I believe we are making our next step to using rally as independent benchmarking tool
17:08:31 <redixin> ok. so i have a fuel deployment, and ready to launch job, but
17:08:35 <amaretskiy> the only solution for this specific case (I think) is to unbound rally from OpenStack environment
17:08:46 <redixin> i need to know how to set up rally to launch task vs fuel
17:09:28 <redixin> so when you done, please give me link to patchset, and I'll make a gate job
17:10:04 <amaretskiy> yes, I'm working on that and I already have dirty implementation of working fuel client inside scenario
17:10:12 <redixin> good
17:10:40 <amaretskiy> but I still haven't unbound rally scenario from deployment
17:10:45 <amaretskiy> Thi si sin progress
17:10:55 <amaretskiy> So, let's resume this
17:11:19 <redixin> wait
17:11:25 <redixin> there is one more patch
17:11:42 <redixin> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175549/ <-
17:12:12 <redixin> this patch is almost done. there is one small change left
17:12:29 <redixin> it introduces "jobs manifests"
17:12:59 <amaretskiy> Great. I will review it tomorrow
17:13:04 <redixin> thanks
17:13:20 <amaretskiy> Colleagues, let's review this patch
17:13:59 <redixin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175549/
17:14:07 <redixin> omg how this chat bot works :0
17:14:12 <amaretskiy> For QA Week, I also  have tasks - they are: 1) implement osclients.register()  and 2) work with oanifriev on fuel scenarios (create/delete/list_environments)
17:14:39 <yfried|prtially_> amaretskiy: sorry to ask, but what is QA Week?
17:14:45 <redixin> osclients.register() is for qa week? O_O
17:14:47 <yfried|prtially_> amaretskiy: just a link if possible
17:15:25 <amaretskiy> redixin, yes :)
17:15:25 <meteorfox> yfried|prtially_: QA -> questions/answers but I have no idea what does that entails, and why there's a week for that
17:15:37 <amaretskiy> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/177884/
17:15:56 <redixin> quality assurance
17:16:10 <meteorfox> oh ok
17:16:12 <redixin> it was a joke about Q&A week
17:16:19 <amaretskiy> :)
17:16:25 <yfried|prtially_> redixin: is it an openstack thing, or a Mirantis thing?
17:16:28 <meteorfox> oh lol :) I'm dum like that
17:16:30 <meteorfox> dumb
17:16:43 <rvasilets_> Mirantis
17:16:43 <amaretskiy> meteorfox: we have internal tasks for this week :)
17:16:53 <redixin> it should be really a lot people with questions to make a Q&A week
17:17:04 <amaretskiy> So, let's resume with QA week
17:17:33 <meteorfox> redixin: lol haha
17:17:35 <amaretskiy> we have tasks regarding fuel scenarios and we have a problem related to that - it is not solved yet
17:18:48 <amaretskiy> Let;s do the following - I will try to find the solution tomorrow, or at least provide the descriptive information for possible solution
17:19:13 <amaretskiy> rvasilets_ what is your tasks for QA Week ?
17:19:14 <meteorfox> amaretskiy: redixin: is there a public place, where these QA tasks are shown
17:19:26 <meteorfox> besides here in chat log
17:19:43 <rvasilets_> Me and mdubov was assigned to do Murano benchmarks
17:20:37 <rvasilets_> After a few discussion with murano team they understand that Murano has a bug and here is it https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bug/1449545
17:20:37 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1449545 in murano "Unable to delete environment(timeout)" [Undecided,New]
17:20:37 <amaretskiy> meteorfox unfortunately the doc has internal access and I do not know sharing policy about it :(
17:20:57 <rvasilets_> We a almost block before thay fix this problem
17:21:01 <rvasilets_> eof
17:21:06 <redixin> meteorfox, looks like no
17:21:25 <amaretskiy> rvasilets: okay, great
17:21:37 <redixin> so, on QA week we are just working on our usual patches?
17:22:14 <amaretskiy> redixin as far as I know we have specific patches to work on this week
17:22:16 <redixin> fuel scenarios, murano scenarios etc
17:22:21 <amaretskiy> not "regular" :)
17:22:29 <redixin> why it is called QA?
17:22:34 <amaretskiy> redixin just look at the doc
17:23:21 <rvasilets_> This is the name given by elterman
17:23:34 <amaretskiy> redixin as far as I know these "QA" patches related to testing improvements :)
17:23:53 <pradeep> amaretskiy: What are 0.4 priorities?
17:23:57 <redixin> rally is whole related to testing improvements %)
17:24:00 <amaretskiy> redixin Ido you have access to the doc ?
17:24:17 <redixin> yes but question is not about it
17:24:19 <redixin> nvm
17:24:24 <amaretskiy> okay
17:24:40 <amaretskiy> any other questions regarding QA week tasks?
17:24:52 <rvasilets_> Elterman gave edict to all project to improve coverage
17:24:53 <rvasilets_> no
17:25:11 <amaretskiy> okay, let's proceed to next topic
17:25:28 <amaretskiy> #topic Upcoming Rally 0.0.4 release: progress on critical patches
17:25:39 <redixin> pradeep, there is a google doc somewhere with links
17:26:06 <amaretskiy> #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TX5zpYcTX8AXm-K_h1lzUNVCMvbRgsjUKU-dEYNWLY8/edit
17:26:09 <yfried> redixin: can't this be tracked via launchpad?
17:26:28 <amaretskiy> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/rally/+spec/important-for-next-release
17:26:36 <redixin> yfried, our PTL hates launchpad and loves google docs
17:26:52 <yfried> redixin: All hail our PTL :)
17:27:15 <amaretskiy> yfried we have blueprint just to mark patches as release-important
17:27:42 <amaretskiy> So, let's discuss important patches
17:27:44 <yfried> amaretskiy: ok, are these documented anywhere? this is the first time I see the release doc and the bp
17:28:28 <yfried> amaretskiy: I suggest a bp for each release, because a single bp would quickly get overcrowded
17:28:51 <amaretskiy> yfried: we need to discuss this with boris-42
17:28:59 <amaretskiy> I can not solve this :)
17:29:13 <redixin> blueprint is here, but no patches
17:29:24 <yfried> amaretskiy: ok. meanwhile, where are the links published? readthedocs?
17:29:34 <yfried> irc topic?
17:29:36 <redixin> so we can track only in google doc at this time
17:29:52 <amaretskiy> yfried I'm not sure that the link is published
17:30:06 <rvasilets_> in roadmap at 2nd page
17:30:10 <rvasilets_> first link
17:30:15 <amaretskiy> I believe we will discuss this with boris-42
17:30:16 <rvasilets_> it is
17:30:56 <amaretskiy> sorry, I just forgotten that
17:30:57 <yfried> rvasilets_: tnx. it is
17:31:05 <amaretskiy> of course, road map :)
17:31:13 <redixin> we should add this topic to agenda to next meeting. we should discuss all this tracking stuff
17:31:28 <yfried> redixin: +1 was gonna right that
17:32:14 <amaretskiy> I think upcoming release definitely will be in next meeting agenda :)
17:32:48 <yfried> amaretskiy: let's move on
17:32:54 <amaretskiy> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/137650/
17:33:15 <amaretskiy> rvasilets_ do you know what is the progress on thi spatch
17:34:27 <rvasilets_> After discussion with murano we understand that context is working right
17:35:12 <rvasilets_> And there is small suggestion wich I try today/tomorrow to realize
17:35:28 <rvasilets_> but its nut about logic
17:35:30 <rvasilets_> eom
17:35:35 <rvasilets_> *not
17:36:13 <amaretskiy> okay
17:36:40 <amaretskiy> this patch is ready for review
17:37:03 <amaretskiy> colleagues, let's review it!
17:37:36 <amaretskiy> next patch
17:37:47 <amaretskiy> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/171625/
17:38:28 <amaretskiy> rvasilets_ what status for it?
17:39:52 <rvasilets_> Murano team give me also one suggestion which I have already realized but I have ni submited it yet. Logic is right but I have found bug in Murano
17:40:00 <rvasilets_> with delete environment
17:40:12 <rvasilets_> realized -> implemented
17:41:01 <rvasilets_> and I can continue to work on this scenario only after there will repair Murano
17:41:04 <rvasilets_> eom
17:41:12 <amaretskiy> rvasilets_, ok, hope this will be solved soon
17:41:28 <amaretskiy> next patch
17:42:01 <amaretskiy> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/162418/
17:42:35 <amaretskiy> does anybody have news from  Antonio Messina regarding this patch?
17:43:00 <redixin> nope
17:43:04 <amaretskiy> I hope he will finish his great work, this patch is almost complete
17:43:07 <pradeep> amaretskiy:  "Allow installation as unprivileged user" is huge work which changes major chunk.
17:43:44 <amaretskiy> pradee actually this patch is working and required updates does not seem huge
17:43:46 <yfried> amaretskiy: I actually don't like this patch. It's making some decision that break current behavior. I really don't think it should be merged as is
17:44:03 <pradeep> amaretskiy: I had issues with this patch on Fedora22
17:44:28 <yfried> I had issues with this on f20 as well
17:44:37 <amaretskiy> yfried: this patch definitely should be updated, but it is great in general
17:44:54 <pradeep> yfried: amaretskiy : Q: Why do we need this?
17:44:55 <yfried> amaretskiy: I've posted my objections. most were ignored
17:45:04 <amaretskiy> yfried: so we need to be sure it is working on fedora
17:45:04 <yfried> pradeep: we need this.
17:45:08 <pradeep> DO we have solid use case?
17:45:35 <amaretskiy> okay, anyway we can not discuss this patch with author for now
17:46:04 <redixin> pradeep, install different versions of rally in different venvs
17:46:07 <amaretskiy> pradeep we have use case and we need this patch
17:46:15 <redixin> pradeep, install rally without root privileges
17:46:22 <amaretskiy> users must have abilitu to install rally without root access
17:46:25 <pradeep> redixin: let me try
17:46:53 <amaretskiy> okay, lets proceed to next patch
17:47:27 <yfried> pradeep: install rally without sudo
17:47:42 <amaretskiy> I skip pathes of boris-42 since hi is on a vacation
17:47:47 <yfried> pradeep: are you taking over this patch?
17:48:35 <amaretskiy> let's move to next topic
17:48:57 <amaretskiy> #topic Spec on refactoring scenario utils: review and discussion
17:49:03 <pradeep> yfried: i tried without sudo
17:49:10 <amaretskiy> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172831/
17:49:15 <pradeep> any way let me re-try. Its been while.
17:49:22 <yfried> amaretskiy: so about this spec,
17:50:00 <amaretskiy> colleagues, please review this spec
17:50:04 <yfried> amaretskiy: I've had conflicting reviews from you and boris, and ambiguous comments from meteorfox
17:50:29 <amaretskiy> yes, ideas differ :)
17:50:41 <yfried> apart from you, I've been unable to get more info from boris and meteorfox
17:51:13 <amaretskiy> lets at least collect all items we agree and all that are not decided
17:51:18 <meteorfox> yfried: sorry about that. I'll try to be more clearer with my comments
17:51:38 <amaretskiy> i believe we agree about creating `services' package
17:51:55 <amaretskiy> and move shared logic from scenarios utis there
17:51:57 <yfried> amaretskiy: yeah, but it seems we don't agree about what should be in it :)
17:52:01 <amaretskiy> is that correct?
17:52:08 <amaretskiy> yes
17:52:20 <amaretskiy> next point, that, I believe, we agreed
17:52:31 <amaretskiy> is path to this package
17:52:54 <amaretskiy> rally.plugins.services
17:53:00 <amaretskiy> is that correct?
17:53:17 <yfried> I think so
17:53:35 <amaretskiy> so, for example, service for keystone/identity will be rally.plugins.services.identity
17:54:02 <yfried> amaretskiy: ack
17:54:15 <amaretskiy> I think we haven't decided yet about services naming - by type (identity) of by name (keystone)
17:54:46 <meteorfox> yfried: in my case, what I was referring to 'API versioning', as I understand the spec, one of the things it intends to add, is supporting multiple API versions, but the example included doesn't seem to show how exactly one refers to a specific versions, or how they are handled
17:54:51 <yfried> amaretskiy: that could be argued on patches
17:54:55 <amaretskiy> but at least we can submit updates spec with already solved pionts - this spec will be more clear
17:55:02 <amaretskiy> yes
17:55:17 <yfried> amaretskiy: will do
17:55:22 <amaretskiy> the main question (as far as I understood) is atomic actions
17:55:34 <yfried> meteorfox: you mean how rally will know to use keystoneV2 or V3
17:55:36 <yfried> ?
17:56:12 <yfried> amaretskiy: I wonder if this should be blocked until atomicmixin is ready
17:56:13 <meteorfox> yfried: right, so when the scenario is being written, how does one use the different versions
17:56:18 <amaretskiy> solution for versioning is also opened question
17:56:58 <yfried> meteorfox: so assuming you have a generic operation, the code in common should replace the wrappers
17:57:36 <amaretskiy> atomic actions is great question, and this question requires boris-42 participation
17:57:48 <yfried> meteorfox: same way that it is done now
17:57:56 <meteorfox> yfried: ok, boris-42 suggested something like this, http://paste.openstack.org/show/210538/  but I'm not convinced I like it.
17:58:17 <amaretskiy> I propose to submit updated spec with already agreed points so we can proceed a bit easy in discussion
17:58:26 <yfried> amaretskiy: will do
17:58:38 <amaretskiy> yfried: thank you
17:58:51 <amaretskiy> okay, let;s proceed to next topic
17:59:18 <amaretskiy> #topic Spec on in-tree functional tests: review and discussion (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/166487/)
17:59:20 <yfried> meteorfox: let's continue this offline. please post clarifications to review
17:59:34 <amaretskiy> okay
17:59:38 <meteorfox> yfried: sure, will do.
17:59:45 * morganfainberg sneaks into the back of the room.
17:59:45 <amaretskiy> let's go into rally chat
18:00:10 <amaretskiy> #endmeeting