14:08:09 #startmeeting Rally 14:08:09 Meeting started Mon Jul 20 14:08:09 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is boris-42. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:08:10 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:08:13 The meeting name has been set to 'rally' 14:08:16 kun_huang: ping 14:08:18 amaretskiy: ping 14:08:30 redixin: ping 14:08:32 boris-42: hi 14:08:35 :) let's start 14:08:38 stpierre: ping 14:08:44 pong 14:08:51 :) 14:08:53 oanufriev: ping 14:08:55 yingjun: hi 14:09:03 hi 14:09:16 hi 14:09:53 okay 14:10:14 #topic Meeting agenda and how to make people work on it not at the very last moment 14:10:30 okay guys it's not ok to make agenda at very last point of time... 14:10:46 any ideas how to improve this? 14:11:07 hi 14:11:59 boris-42: maybe ask responsible man to repeat agenda by email at friday ? 14:12:28 rvasilets: ^ 14:12:38 yeah, an earlier deadline is the only way that's going to happen. otherwise people will always remember something they want to add just before meeting time 14:12:43 rvasilets: maybe it's better not on friday? 14:12:54 stpierre: yep but today it was empty * 14:13:00 stpierre: 30 minutes ago 14:13:14 Sorry, but now meeting manager stpierre, no? 14:14:00 i think a friday deadline makes sense 14:14:02 I was sent email previously at thursday 14:14:20 As boris-42 suggested to me 14:14:23 oh, i didn't even realize that was part of the job 14:14:41 rvasilets: so I believe you can just 14:14:45 rvasilets: send reminders 14:14:50 hi all 14:14:55 rvasilets: so we would avoid such situtations 14:14:58 temujin: hi therer 14:15:00 ok, I will sent reminders 14:15:04 rvasilets: thanks 14:15:12 at what day you want? 14:15:25 friday ok7 14:15:30 maybe anyone remember this may send email on friday? 14:15:45 #vote 14:15:52 #vote +1 14:16:13 what about Thursday? 14:16:23 because Friday is hard day 14:17:01 #vote for thursday 14:17:31 both okay for me :) 14:17:37 #vote +1 14:17:38 its reasonable too 14:18:02 so lets it would be thursday? 14:18:12 thursday sounds good for a reminder 14:18:22 okay 14:18:47 #agreed meeting reminder on Thursday 14:18:54 okay next topic 14:19:21 #topic [boris-42] Splitting Rally framework and OpenStack (updates) 14:19:58 Okay there were few patches 14:20:12 that makes rally framework independet from OpenStack 14:20:35 this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202366/ 14:20:59 is required for patch that will make our context responsible for mapping resources for each scenario iteration 14:21:25 e.g. I will move this code https://github.com/openstack/rally/blob/master/rally/task/runner.py#L47-L58 14:21:29 to ContextManager 14:21:41 I am going to publish this patch today later 14:21:48 any questions? 14:22:43 no questions 14:22:50 nope 14:22:50 no 14:23:33 great so after this step 14:23:44 we will have just 2 more things to refactor 14:24:00 task.verification and task.types 14:24:12 to run rally tasks with OpenStack clouds 14:24:27 and finally be able to start working on tox-self 14:24:39 functional testing that can be run without cloud 14:25:06 okay moving to next topic 14:25:17 #topic [boris-42] Support of benchmarking multi API versions of projects with same plugins 14:26:01 So recently we introduced openstack scenario https://github.com/openstack/rally/blob/master/rally/plugins/openstack/scenario.py 14:26:20 It means that now we have place for OpenStack magic 14:26:31 that won't affect rally framework 14:26:52 so the idea is that we will have special context for openstack_api_versions 14:27:05 where you can specify info what python clients to create 14:27:20 and there will be validator for all scenarios (which versions they support) 14:27:40 and a bit magic in osclients and openstack.scenario to make this work 14:27:57 so overall it will be simple patch 14:28:02 any questions? 14:28:23 look forward to you "a bit magic". No 14:28:37 great! no questions 14:28:43 the purpose is good but it seems a bit magic 14:28:55 do we need multiple python clients? 14:29:02 will it be trivial to test multiple versions in the same task? or will we need to specify multiple task configs to test, say, user creation on keystone v2 and v3? 14:30:01 kun_huang: no we don't need it 14:30:18 stpierre: we will be able to test different versions in the same task 14:30:24 awesome 14:30:32 do you have an example of how the task config will look? 14:30:33 stpierre: with the same benchamrks =) 14:30:44 stpierre: just one more conetxt 14:31:01 stpierre: "openstack_api": {"cinder": 2} 14:31:09 okay, look forward on this 14:31:28 will lists work? e.g., {"keystone": [2, 3]} would run the scenario with keystone v2 and v3? 14:31:40 stpierre: nope 14:31:52 stpierre: you have to speicfy to different test case 14:31:55 okay, so i will need to duplicate the config 14:32:05 that's kind of a shame. could we make lists work? 14:32:17 stpierre: use jinja2 template 14:32:20 oh! 14:32:27 good, carry on :) 14:32:32 stpierre: it's bad idea to break the logic 14:32:36 stpierre: of whole rally 14:32:51 stpierre: and idea of having simple task format without any magic 14:33:07 stpierre: to make from one scenario 2 14:33:15 yeah, makes sense 14:33:24 especially when you can make a for with 2 args 14:33:24 i wasn't thinking of how backwards that would be 14:34:33 stpierre: I mean there is nothing non backward in my proposal 14:35:03 stpierre: we are just adding via context info about required versions and use them when we are initializing clients in openstack.scneario class 14:35:10 stpierre: +verificators 14:35:20 yeah, it all makes sense 14:35:21 thanks 14:36:39 boris-42: it's great! 14:37:57 okay guys 14:38:00 next topic 14:38:11 #topic [amaretskiy] Status for patches related to new streaming Reports generation: 14:39:06 there were some comments regarding changes in these patches, so last week I implemented these changes 14:39:34 and now all patches are done - I'm currently trying to get +1 from jenkins for some of them 14:39:49 making recheck and fixing issues 14:40:03 so now at least 2 patches are ready for review right now 14:40:08 these patches are: 14:40:19 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201611/ 14:41:03 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201611/ 14:41:14 #link ps://review.openstack.org/#/c/159458/ 14:41:46 another patches in thread (all patches are in dependency) are on their way to get +1 from gates 14:41:57 so please make reviews 14:42:17 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159458/ 14:42:41 rvasilets: thanks 14:42:54 so, please review them 14:43:38 I believe other 2 patches (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/146814/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/169828/) will be ready today 14:43:49 but in any case they are ready for review too 14:43:51 eom 14:44:47 rvasilets: no problems 14:45:09 amaretskiy: ok thanks 14:45:25 amaretskiy: ok thanks 14:46:03 amaretskiy: ok thanks 14:46:37 test 14:46:40 test 14:46:42 :) 14:49:22 ping 14:49:32 boris-42, pomg 14:49:55 #topic Ironic benchmarks 14:50:07 p 14:50:16 ok lets move further 14:51:03 I have finished Ironuc benchmarks 14:51:10 *Ironic 14:51:15 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186064/ 14:51:30 And now I strongly need for review 14:51:52 I have requesteed a few times for a wekk in Rally irc chat for review 14:51:54 ppp 14:52:09 and Yair promised to me to review it a week ago 14:52:23 but there is now review from core teeam on this patch 14:52:42 also it was reviewed by Ironuc cores few times 14:52:55 So please review it 14:53:05 #help need review 14:53:10 boris-42, eom 14:53:32 test 14:53:33 #topic free discussion 14:53:44 is there any question? 14:54:17 no 14:54:32 nope 14:55:02 any progress about API? 14:56:09 yingjun: do you mean https://review.openstack.org/#/c/182245/ ? 14:56:10 yingjun: it is just updated before meeting 14:56:16 ping 14:56:18 whou works 14:56:28 boris-42_, pong 14:56:41 amaretskiy, yep 14:56:43 not sure that I will be able to end meeting 14:56:53 boris-42_, I will end 14:57:05 rvasilets: you can't end the meeting 14:58:07 yingjun, as I understand It now on review 14:58:41 and after amaretskiy finished his report he will take part on it maintance 14:59:05 kun_huang: please remind who handle spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/182245/ ? I thought that is you :) 14:59:06 #endmeeting