21:00:34 <adrian_otto> #startmeeting Solum Team Meeting 21:00:35 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Sep 15 21:00:34 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is adrian_otto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:00:36 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:00:40 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'solum_team_meeting' 21:00:42 <adrian_otto> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Solum#Agenda_for_2015-09-15_2100_UTC Our Agenda 21:00:48 <adrian_otto> #topic Roll Call 21:00:50 <adrian_otto> Adrian Otto 21:00:51 <datsun180b> Ed Cranford 21:00:55 <devkulkarni> Devdatta Kulkarni 21:00:55 <james_li> james li 21:00:56 <muralia> o/ 21:01:14 <adrian_otto> hello datsun180b devkulkarni james_li and muralia 21:01:23 <devkulkarni> hi adrian_otto 21:01:26 <james_li> Hi adrian_otto 21:01:29 <muralia> hi all 21:01:48 <devkulkarni> hi datsun180b, muralia, james_li 21:02:48 <adrian_otto> #topic Announcements 21:03:02 <adrian_otto> devkulkarni: you have two, would you like to relay those to the team? 21:03:12 <devkulkarni> adrian_otto: sure 21:03:22 <devkulkarni> 1) Solum namespace migration happened without any issues on September 11 2015 at 23:00 UTC 21:03:38 <devkulkarni> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-September/074294.html 21:03:44 <james_li> nice 21:03:47 <devkulkarni> You will have to update git remote, and modify gerrit url in .git/config 21:03:55 <devkulkarni> james_li: yep 21:04:12 <adrian_otto> yay!! 21:04:14 <devkulkarni> all our repos are now under openstack org in github 21:04:18 <devkulkarni> adrian_otto :) 21:04:36 <devkulkarni> if you run into issues with modifying/updating your git remotes let me know 21:04:49 <devkulkarni> that is completion of the first announcement 21:05:00 <devkulkarni> 2) I am running for Solum PTL 21:05:14 <devkulkarni> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-September/074567.html 21:05:42 <devkulkarni> so adrian_otto and I discussed about this recently and think that it is a good point to transition 21:05:43 <adrian_otto> sweet. You have my vote. 21:05:48 <muralia> cool 21:05:53 <devkulkarni> awesome!! thanks adrian_otto 21:05:54 <adrian_otto> hello gpilz 21:05:59 <gpilz> hi adrian 21:06:08 <adrian_otto> Solum deserves a PTL who will be immersed in the daily details of the project 21:06:14 <datsun180b> agred 21:06:18 <datsun180b> agreed, even 21:06:21 <adrian_otto> so it's a good time to plan a transition 21:06:41 <devkulkarni> I will be devoting full attention to the project 21:06:53 <adrian_otto> I'll remain involved at the level I am today 21:07:06 <devkulkarni> will ping you adrian_otto to learn about upstream related details 21:07:11 <adrian_otto> so I'm not stepping away from the project, but encouraging a leadership change 21:07:24 <devkulkarni> adrian_otto: glad to hear you will still be involved 21:07:49 <devkulkarni> in fact, we need more hands with the solum-magnum integration 21:07:50 <adrian_otto> devkulkarni: I'm happy to help you in any way I can 21:07:56 <devkulkarni> so good to know you will be around 21:08:29 <devkulkarni> cool.. adrian_otto, do you know the details of the voting process? 21:08:49 <adrian_otto> you need to submit a review to the openstack/elections repo 21:09:05 <devkulkarni> yes, I have done that. 21:09:08 <devkulkarni> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223697/1 21:09:44 <adrian_otto> once that patch is merged, you will simply appear in the main OpenStack election. The ATC's who have contributed to Magnum in the Liberty release will need to vote for you. 21:09:57 <devkulkarni> you mean Solum 21:10:10 <adrian_otto> yes, I mean Solum 21:10:12 <adrian_otto> case in point 21:10:31 <devkulkarni> got it 21:10:43 <devkulkarni> so nothing more is needed to be done from my side I suppose 21:11:37 <devkulkarni> cool.. that is completion of my announcements 21:12:04 <adrian_otto> ok 21:12:26 <adrian_otto> #topic Review Action Items 21:12:32 <adrian_otto> did we have any? 21:12:38 <devkulkarni> not that I remember 21:12:55 <adrian_otto> 1. (none) 21:13:08 <adrian_otto> looking back 1 more week 21:13:39 <adrian_otto> (none) 21:13:45 <devkulkarni> yep 21:13:57 <devkulkarni> not many action items which we had specifically called out 21:14:03 <adrian_otto> #topic Blueprint/Task Review and Discussion 21:14:21 <adrian_otto> (devkulkarni): Request for reviews for following. Our devstack gate is currently blocked and this will unblock it. 21:14:28 <devkulkarni> I saw datsun180b and adrian_otto, you have approved this 21:14:36 <adrian_otto> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223327/ 21:14:40 <adrian_otto> approved for merge 21:14:50 <devkulkarni> thanks datsun180b adrian_otto 21:15:15 <adrian_otto> (devkulkarni): Solum namespace migration 21:15:22 <adrian_otto> You will have to update git remote, and modify gerrit url in .git/config 21:15:27 <devkulkarni> I have already covered this.. but just to re-iterate 21:15:38 <devkulkarni> you will need to update git remotes and modify the gerrit url 21:15:42 <adrian_otto> yep 21:15:42 <adrian_otto> (devkulkarni): Liberty releases 21:15:54 <adrian_otto> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-September/074367.html 21:16:04 <devkulkarni> ok, on this one let me give some more insight 21:16:16 <adrian_otto> #link https://review.openstack.org/223244 21:16:23 <devkulkarni> recently dhellman sent an email to the dev list to prep for liberty client releases 21:16:30 <devkulkarni> so I submitted a review ^^ 21:16:42 <devkulkarni> but looks like we are 'release:independent' 21:16:56 <devkulkarni> meaning we are not required to release with the rest of the projects 21:17:05 <devkulkarni> so that email is not directly applicable to us 21:17:21 <devkulkarni> on that review, dhellman has given suggestions on what manual steps we need to take 21:17:26 <devkulkarni> to do a release. 21:17:43 <adrian_otto> I can work with you on that 21:17:53 <devkulkarni> sounds good adrian_otto. 21:17:55 <devkulkarni> I was thinking that, once some of the trigger related work has been ported over to use apps 21:18:00 <adrian_otto> was all the API work cleaned to the point we are ready to do a release? 21:18:09 <devkulkarni> we can cut the client liberty release 21:18:13 <adrian_otto> ok, I see 21:18:15 <devkulkarni> no, not yet adrian_otto 21:18:24 <devkulkarni> still week/10 days 21:18:28 <adrian_otto> ok, we can tag that when it makes sense 21:18:33 <devkulkarni> yep 21:18:43 <devkulkarni> that is all on that topic 21:19:07 <adrian_otto> ok! 21:19:27 <adrian_otto> related to that… 21:19:36 <adrian_otto> (devkulkarni): Trigger controller improvement 21:19:44 <adrian_otto> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/solum/+bug/1495686 21:19:45 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1495686 in Solum "refactor-trigger-controller" [Wishlist,New] 21:19:53 <devkulkarni> yes.. I have now started working on connecting our trigger controller to workflow 21:19:56 <adrian_otto> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/solum/+bug/1496134 21:19:57 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1496134 in Solum "trigger-controller-and-pipeline-handler-association" [Low,New] 21:20:07 <devkulkarni> and while looking at the code I noticed that our trigger controller can be improved 21:20:16 <devkulkarni> so the two bugs above are for that.. 21:20:21 <devkulkarni> I have questions about both 21:20:36 <devkulkarni> I think james_li and datsun180b would be able to answer 21:20:41 <devkulkarni> provide insights 21:21:10 <devkulkarni> james_li: could you take a moment to check out the first bug 21:21:26 <devkulkarni> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/solum/+bug/1495686 21:21:27 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1495686 in Solum "refactor-trigger-controller" [Wishlist,Triaged] 21:22:20 <devkulkarni> james_li: I would like to discuss how to improve the code in the post method to make it more understandable 21:24:59 <adrian_otto> what a lively discussion!! 21:25:06 <adrian_otto> maybe we should revisit it another time 21:25:09 <devkulkarni> james_li: ping 21:25:12 <devkulkarni> sure adrian_otto 21:25:19 <devkulkarni> I will follow with james_li on this 21:25:31 <devkulkarni> moving on to the second bug 21:25:33 <adrian_otto> do you want to track an action on that one, or not? 21:25:47 <devkulkarni> we could track an action 21:25:51 <devkulkarni> sure 21:26:16 <james_li> devkulkarni: sorry, back 21:26:24 <devkulkarni> jame_li: :) 21:26:39 <adrian_otto> ok, you can discuss now, and we can postpone the action 21:26:45 <devkulkarni> james_li: so I wanted to discuss how we might improve the trigger controller 21:27:06 <james_li> refactor 21:27:07 <james_li> ? 21:27:10 <devkulkarni> yes 21:27:22 <devkulkarni> the github related things 21:27:26 <james_li> makes sense 21:27:29 <devkulkarni> that we are checking in the post method 21:27:34 <james_li> def post() is too long 21:27:48 <devkulkarni> conceptually, what would be a good way to break things down? 21:28:24 <james_li> agree 21:28:44 <devkulkarni> ok, I will take a stab at it james_li 21:28:51 <james_li> ok 21:29:13 <devkulkarni> ok, the second bug is something that datsun180b you might have some insights 21:29:36 <devkulkarni> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/solum/+bug/1496134 21:29:37 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1496134 in Solum "trigger-controller-and-pipeline-handler-association" [Low,Triaged] 21:29:53 <datsun180b> let's see 21:29:55 <devkulkarni> basically, we are calling into the pipeline handler in an exception block 21:30:17 <james_li> only when assemblyhandler is not found 21:30:52 <devkulkarni> james_li: sure, but that assumes that we have pipeline handler + mistral in our setup 21:30:53 <devkulkarni> right? 21:31:18 <devkulkarni> otherwise that call is going to fail 21:31:40 <devkulkarni> so it does not seem correct to me that we should use that within an exception handling block 21:32:16 <devkulkarni> datsun180b, james_li: do you recall why we are doing it this way? 21:32:34 <devkulkarni> my guess is we had this before we implemented trigger functionality on assemblyhandler 21:32:50 <devkulkarni> and so we just moved this code within the exception handler 21:33:13 <james_li> no, angus added that when he implement pipeline 21:33:46 <datsun180b> yeah, i think that's there as an old fallback 21:34:15 <datsun180b> worth revisiting 21:34:19 <james_li> I thought is that you can remove that code if you want to completely remove mistral/pipeline code from solum 21:34:19 <devkulkarni> datsun180b, james_li: ok cool.. 21:34:34 <devkulkarni> james_li, datsun180b: that's what I was thinking 21:34:42 <devkulkarni> at least remove it from exception handler 21:34:57 <devkulkarni> the way it is currently, the code is very non-intuitive 21:35:45 <devkulkarni> james_li, datsun180b: ok.. I will revisit this now that I am integrating trigger controller with workflow handler 21:36:15 <devkulkarni> adrian_otto: I have two more points to discuss 21:36:23 <adrian_otto> ok 21:36:33 <adrian_otto> in open discussion, or before? 21:36:42 <devkulkarni> anything is fine 21:36:46 <adrian_otto> #topic Open Discussion 21:36:52 <devkulkarni> ok, so muralia 21:36:55 <adrian_otto> proceed 21:37:00 <muralia> ya 21:37:12 <devkulkarni> first point is related to your recent email about keystone plugin on Magnum list 21:37:19 <muralia> ok 21:37:29 <devkulkarni> so there was a response by someone 21:37:36 <muralia> yes 21:37:40 <devkulkarni> did you get a chance to understand what was being suggested 21:38:04 <devkulkarni> I was wondering how valid the suggestions are, and can it benefit solum as well? 21:38:06 <devkulkarni> thoughts? 21:38:19 <muralia> i think i understand it. but i need to actually code it to see how it workd 21:38:32 <devkulkarni> I see.. 21:38:45 <devkulkarni> how different it is from what you have put in place for us for solum? 21:39:07 <muralia> very. magnum does exactly what solum does. 21:39:32 <devkulkarni> right.. but that person's suggestions are very different you say? 21:39:38 <devkulkarni> hmm 21:39:57 <devkulkarni> ok, I will re-read that and might ping you to discuss about it more 21:40:11 <muralia> cool 21:40:19 <devkulkarni> ok, so the second point is a related one.. 21:40:25 <devkulkarni> it is for all.. 21:40:59 <devkulkarni> so I was looking at our data models and was thinking if it is correct to store trust_id with plan/app? 21:41:22 <devkulkarni> should we consider defining a 'user' abstraction 21:41:41 <devkulkarni> or something along those lines 21:41:59 <james_li> trust id is for getting user/tenant context 21:42:00 <devkulkarni> conceptually, an app data model should not have to know about trusts 21:42:11 <devkulkarni> james_li: yes 21:42:16 <muralia> it would make sense to do that if the trust is being used more then git triggers. 21:42:23 <muralia> right now, thats all it is being used for 21:42:30 <devkulkarni> true 21:42:42 <muralia> once we have another use case, we can do that 21:43:50 <devkulkarni> muralia: umm..yeah, it will save us time right now as the changes to use apps will not have to worry about additional data model 21:44:02 <devkulkarni> but I was thinking more generally 21:44:03 <muralia> sure 21:44:16 <devkulkarni> what are you guys doing in magnum, designate, trove? 21:44:36 <devkulkarni> do you guys need to use trust in any shape/form? 21:45:37 <james_li> don;t think they use trusts 21:45:39 <datsun180b> i don't have any comparable examples 21:45:43 <muralia> yes in magnum we do. but we dont have a user abstraction yet. the trust is used mainly to download certs on the nova instance. so we just inject it directly into the node 21:45:59 <devkulkarni> muralia: oh okay 21:46:09 <devkulkarni> and you don't keep it around in magnum db? 21:46:16 <devkulkarni> datsun180b, james_li: got it 21:46:45 <muralia> it will be. this feature is being implemented now. we might store it in db or barbican. 21:47:11 <devkulkarni> muralia: ok.. will keep an eye out to see if you guys end up implementing a user abstraction 21:47:43 <devkulkarni> ok, those were the two additional points I wanted to discuss 21:48:21 <devkulkarni> datsun180b: how are you doing? 21:48:39 <datsun180b> in what context? 21:48:43 <devkulkarni> generally :) 21:49:05 <datsun180b> adjusting well enough i suppose 21:49:16 <devkulkarni> nice!! 21:49:17 <datsun180b> not much room to focus on solum these days though 21:49:34 <devkulkarni> hmm.. I am glad you are able to find time for the meetings 21:50:11 <devkulkarni> gpilz: you around? 21:50:12 <datsun180b> i'll try to keep it up. i missed last week for example 21:50:22 <devkulkarni> datsun180b: that is understandable 21:51:08 <devkulkarni> datsun180b: so all the workflow patches merged 21:51:16 <devkulkarni> datsun180b: also the changes to the cli 21:51:37 <devkulkarni> datsun180b: you missed some nice gate issues as well :) 21:51:45 <devkulkarni> around wsme 21:52:01 <datsun180b> i saw some discussions, and some wider-ranging dev list conversations 21:52:07 <datsun180b> seems to be mostly ironed out now 21:52:26 <devkulkarni> datsun180b: yes, wsme 0.8.0 has added stricter checking on api objects 21:52:36 <devkulkarni> oh yeah 21:52:53 <devkulkarni> that reminds me of a weird bug/feature that we have in our cli 21:53:05 <datsun180b> do tell 21:53:19 <devkulkarni> since we are using the openstack cli, we are sending 'base_url' in our data 21:53:33 <devkulkarni> we cannot control this (i.e. we cannot not send it) 21:53:38 <devkulkarni> as the openstack cli takes over 21:53:46 <devkulkarni> let me get the bug link for you 21:53:50 <datsun180b> i'm familiar with the premise 21:55:05 <devkulkarni> datsun180b: looks like I have not filed it yet 21:55:19 <devkulkarni> but you can check the wsme related commit in solum 21:55:30 <devkulkarni> I have explanation of the issue in the commit message there 21:55:32 <datsun180b> i read you had made mention of it in a dev list, unless you hadn't and i dreamt it 21:56:02 <devkulkarni> datsun180b: probably not on the list, but in the commit message 21:56:07 <devkulkarni> you must have read it 21:56:10 <devkulkarni> but yeah.. 21:56:16 <devkulkarni> you understand the issue 21:56:23 <devkulkarni> any suggestions on how to handle it? 21:56:41 <devkulkarni> I will create a bug explaining it more and we can follow up later 21:56:49 <devkulkarni> just wanted to throw it out there 21:56:56 <adrian_otto> ok, time to wrap up for today? 21:57:05 <devkulkarni> sure adrian_otto 21:57:08 <datsun180b> right, let's move that out of this meeting 21:57:16 <devkulkarni> thanks datsun180b 21:57:49 <adrian_otto> Our next meeting is Tuesday 2015-09-22 at 2100 UTC. See you then! 21:57:59 <adrian_otto> #endmeeting