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