14:00:09 #startmeeting Rally 14:00:09 Meeting started Mon Oct 10 14:00:09 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is andreykurilin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:10 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:00:13 The meeting name has been set to 'rally' 14:00:16 hi all 14:01:30 hi 14:01:48 o/ 14:01:58 hi 14:02:38 #topic * [amaretskiy] Let's discuss term "scenario" - should this term be replaced completely by "workload" or maybe we can give it specific meaning? 14:02:54 #link https://rally.readthedocs.io/en/latest/glossary.html#scenario 14:03:03 we have new terminology update recently 14:03:26 according to this update, term scenario is replaced with "workload" 14:03:57 so something is still unclear - why get rid of word "scenario" completely & 14:04:00 ? 14:04:18 this word sounds great and is used intuitively 14:04:20 I like term scenario:) 14:04:21 I call scenario - python code that is in run() 14:04:25 i like too 14:04:42 so maybe find a place for this term, as well as for workload? 14:04:51 ideas? 14:05:05 let's say "scenario" is a one iteration or python-code of workload 14:05:19 run() body == "scenario" 14:05:48 this is not clear 14:05:53 we should not align our terms to names of methods in code 14:06:36 how about class rally.task.scenario.Scenario - do we plan rename it to class Workload? 14:06:53 rally.task.workload.Workload 14:07:10 hm 14:07:15 :) 14:07:24 for me, workload is a bunch of iterations 14:07:48 so we should keep `rally.task.scenario.Scenario` 14:07:58 i like this idea 14:08:05 keeping Scenario class 14:08:16 Workload is https://github.com/openstack/rally/blob/master/rally/task/engine.py#L583 14:08:20 scenario is an entity which is launched in iterations of workload 14:09:26 let's make a definition of workload for glossary 14:10:57 we need guru of glossary :) 14:12:00 okay, I will make a patch with proposed definition 14:12:05 thanks:) 14:12:16 let's move to the next topic 14:12:30 #topic [ylobankov] New Rally verify HTML report 14:12:34 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/343504/ 14:13:18 #link http://logs.openstack.org/04/343504/39/check/gate-rally-dsvm-verify-full-discover-resources/d42a37f/rally-verify/11_verify_results.html.gz 14:13:32 guys, we have some features from the old report and these features disapeared in the new report. 14:13:53 sometimes it happens 14:13:54 lol 14:14:19 ylobankov: sure. I've told about this to andreykurilin. I'm working on that 14:14:27 ok, we have a good candidate for new verification report 14:14:43 lets discuss all features which should be added there 14:15:05 for example, when tempest test was skipped, we may have a messahe with the link to the bug. The new report doesn't have it. Ok. 14:15:12 tests numeration re-calculation after some filters are disabled 14:15:26 yep 14:15:28 ylobankov: i will fix that 14:15:38 ^ about links 14:15:40 amaretskiy: ok:) 14:16:01 but numeration re-calculation is a topic to discuss 14:16:06 What about report title? 14:16:26 title is for discussion too 14:16:29 as far as I remember title of new report is Rally Verification results 14:16:33 lets start from "but numeration re-calculation is a topic to discuss" 14:16:58 can someone add more details about this topic& 14:17:01 ? 14:17:37 all we need here is to re-numerate tests depending on filters 14:17:51 should we? 14:18:11 yes, because it is very convenient 14:18:37 currently, you can say "look at test #666" and this number will be constant without dependencies on filters 14:18:42 any objections on it? 14:19:30 tests have IDs. Why we need to add new IDs 14:20:00 and if we add re-numerations, you will need to say "look at test #666 in "success" status". more words. lol 14:20:11 "tests have IDs. Why we need to add new IDs" it is a good question 14:21:15 but, after verification component refactor, we will support not only Tempest and another verifier can miss test-uuid support 14:21:30 we can not display single ID if we have more than one verification 14:21:54 btw I do not know why tempest has test-uuids. tests names are unique... 14:22:12 The thing is that the number of tests may be changed 14:22:17 btw I do not know why tempest has test-uuids. tests names are unique... 14:22:20 sorry 14:22:54 because tests can be renamed and it is needed to track the test 14:22:55 rvasilets amaretskiy thoughts? 14:23:20 no ideas 14:23:56 I consider that the numeration is just for convenience 14:24:00 uuid does not serve numeration 14:24:30 I have no enough argument for and against re-numeration 14:24:37 numeration is great for user comfortable. I think users are affraid of big uuid like strings) 14:25:38 I think that users use test names rather than IDs 14:26:07 ok, we can add a button 'renumerate' 14:26:36 i think this would be rather confusing 14:26:47 I'm against additional button:) it is better to add auto-recalculation 14:27:01 maybe checkbox 14:27:21 #agree no extra buttons 14:27:36 lets do not do our reports too complex 14:28:17 ok, I suppose to make re-numeration and if users are happy, fix it 14:28:27 not happy* 14:28:42 +1 14:28:48 + 14:29:06 so, re-numerate tests? 14:29:38 it looks like we have an agreement here :) 14:29:55 got it, I will add auto-renumeration 14:30:28 "What about report title?" 14:30:39 ylobankov ? 14:31:02 we have the following report title 'Rally Verification report' 14:31:19 what about 'Rally Verification Report'? 14:32:06 each word starts with capital letter 14:32:14 amaretskiy ideas? 14:32:59 style should be synchronized with task report and trends report 14:33:31 I personally like "Rally verifications results" 14:33:34 :) 14:33:52 + 14:33:59 ащк еру дфые щту 14:34:04 for the last one 14:34:31 I like the concistency :) 14:34:37 I don't mind 14:34:40 ok 14:34:53 any other open questions about new report? 14:35:32 no from me. I like actually the new report :) 14:36:26 #topic [rvasiltes] Add sla section to the samples 14:37:16 I have a lot of comments on review like ' 14:37:23 please add sla section 14:37:31 I'm tired to write them 14:37:32 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/348395/ 14:37:44 Are we going to fix this?