08:03:40 <dkushwaha> #startmeeting tacker 08:03:41 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Dec 17 08:03:40 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dkushwaha. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 08:03:42 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 08:03:44 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tacker' 08:03:53 <dkushwaha> #topic Roll Call 08:04:08 <tpatil> Hi 08:04:12 <takahashi-tsc> Hi 08:04:25 <joxyuki> hi 08:04:42 <keiko-k> Hello 08:04:50 <nitinuikey> Hi 08:05:46 <dkushwaha> hello all 08:06:20 <dkushwaha> #chair joxyuki 08:06:21 <openstack> Current chairs: dkushwaha joxyuki 08:07:21 <dkushwaha> #topic BP 08:07:29 <dkushwaha> BP support-etsi-nfv-specs 08:07:42 <dkushwaha> tpatil, any update from your side? 08:08:19 <dkushwaha> i think keiko-k working on it 08:08:20 <tpatil> Working on updating the specs, we will push a new PS today e.o.d or tomorrow morning 08:09:24 <dkushwaha> tpatil, nice 08:12:08 <dkushwaha> moving next.. 08:12:37 <dkushwaha> #topic attach-existing-volume 08:12:46 <dkushwaha> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698477/ 08:13:47 <dkushwaha> joxyuki, I am agree on your comment 08:14:01 <joxyuki> nice feature. please check my comment. 08:14:03 <dkushwaha> and hopefully, will push updated patch by today 08:14:17 <joxyuki> nice! 08:14:53 <dkushwaha> A dependent patch is pushed in tosca-parser 08:14:58 <dkushwaha> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698439/ 08:15:15 <dkushwaha> Please review 08:16:05 <dkushwaha> i am hoping to merge that dependent patch, but seems no reviewer from tosca-parser 08:16:43 <dkushwaha> will try to ping them (if available) 08:17:37 <joxyuki> yes. anyway I will review the patch. 08:18:16 <dkushwaha> thanks 08:18:33 <dkushwaha> moving next.. 08:19:10 <dkushwaha> joxyuki, do you have some update? 08:19:41 <joxyuki> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/697616/ 08:20:08 <joxyuki> I would like you to review this patch. 08:20:48 <joxyuki> Tacker lower-constraitns job doesn't work properly. 08:22:11 <dkushwaha> joxyuki, yea, I looked an overview earlier. will review it 08:22:41 <dkushwaha> joxyuki, just a query, why to override install_command command? 08:23:15 <dkushwaha> I am not sure(haven't seen in other project) if it is ok to override it 08:25:21 <joxyuki> because in current tox.ini, install command in [testenv] includes -c upper-constraints.txt so this results in install command is issued with both upper-constraints and lower-constraints. 08:27:15 <joxyuki> I checked some logs of load patches and found that tacker lower-constraints job is actually tested against upper-constraints. 08:27:27 <joxyuki> sorry, load -> old 08:28:12 <dkushwaha> joxyuki, i see. 08:28:57 <joxyuki> I am not sure pip behavior when specifying multiple -c but the logs shows that. 08:29:01 <dkushwaha> Ok, i will review the patch(and hope to find out some way if we can avoid this overriding) 08:29:08 <keiko-k> dkushwaha Do you have any update regarding functional test? 08:29:45 <keiko-k> It seems that installation of devstack controller has failed in FT. 08:29:54 <keiko-k> https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/eefa8600e75942289822ff9f2db3e4bd 08:32:30 <joxyuki> I think another fix is moving "-c upper constraints" to deps from install_command in [testenv]. My change follows nova tox.ini. 08:33:14 <dkushwaha> keiko-k, no update as of now, But I just trying to setup my env with devstack and getting issues as: RTNETLINK answers: Permission denied 08:33:51 <dkushwaha> keiko-k, will look in to gate issue 08:34:23 <keiko-k> Okay. 08:35:10 <tpatil> #link : https://review.opendev.org/#/c/618086 08:35:17 <tpatil> Delete VNF should fail with 409 error 08:35:47 <tpatil> I was finding what's the best place to add the vnf status check so that it can return 409 error 08:36:00 <tpatil> #link: https://github.com/openstack/tacker/blob/master/tacker/db/vnfm/vnfm_db.py#L581 08:36:16 <dkushwaha> joxyuki, sounds good 08:37:18 <tpatil> But here, it's checking if the vnf_id exists in the Ns and then it checks if NS status is not in [constants.PENDING_DELETE, constants.ERROR] 08:38:42 <tpatil> So this code is written from NS point of view. If we check if NS is not present for a given vnf_id, then it should look for vnf. If it exists, then it's status shouldn't be in PENDING_CREATE 08:39:42 <dkushwaha> tpatil, joxyuki my comment on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/618086 was regarding mainly to raise "VNFDeleteFailed" error as check_vnf_status_legality can also be called from scale or some other places 08:41:44 <joxyuki> make sense 08:41:56 <tpatil> dkushwaha: For that comment only, I was checking what's the next best place to add this check and I think it's _delete_vnf_pre method. What do you think? 08:42:23 <dkushwaha> link please 08:42:37 <tpatil> #link: https://github.com/openstack/tacker/blob/master/tacker/db/vnfm/vnfm_db.py#L581 08:43:49 <tpatil> as mentioned above, _delete_vnf_pre is written from deleting vnf from Ns, but VNF can exists as standalone as well. 08:44:04 <tpatil> s/from/for 08:44:56 <tpatil> I'm talking mainly about lines 588-590 08:46:45 <dkushwaha> tpatil, hmm, probably yes, _delete_vnf_pre method should be good place 08:47:25 <dkushwaha> request you to please re-verify from your end too 08:47:56 <tpatil> We will make the necessary changes and upload a new PS for review 08:48:20 <dkushwaha> tpatil, thanks 08:48:52 <dkushwaha> moving next.. 08:50:05 <dkushwaha> takahashi-tsc, do you something to update ? 08:51:15 <takahashi-tsc> Sorry, now no update... But we discuss and make spec "Support event trigger alarm and vdu_autoheal by policy type alarm", I will push BP and spec this week. 08:51:57 <dkushwaha> takahashi-tsc, np. 08:52:15 <dkushwaha> #topic OpenDiscussion 08:52:29 <hyunsikyang> Hi I am late due to my meeting at my office. Now we are trying to make a test code for two features. 08:52:43 <hyunsikyang> I have a two question.. 08:52:59 <joxyuki> hi hyunsickyang 08:53:02 <hyunsikyang> First, https://review.opendev.org/#/c/681157/ 08:53:04 <hyunsikyang> Hi 08:53:06 <hyunsikyang> Jo 08:53:27 <hyunsikyang> About that one,. can we make a new review after abandon? 08:53:53 <hyunsikyang> We will update it soon with test code. 08:54:25 <hyunsikyang> or can I just update code to there? 08:55:07 <dkushwaha> hyunsikyang, yes, you can. suggested way is to update the same patch with updated code 08:55:28 <hyunsikyang> Ah ok:) 08:55:42 <dkushwaha> no needs to abandon the patch until it is completely out of scope 08:55:44 <hyunsikyang> we will update it to same patch 08:55:54 <hyunsikyang> OKie. 08:55:55 <hyunsikyang> Thanks 08:56:07 <hyunsikyang> another question is ... 08:56:41 <hyunsikyang> Actually, About C-VNF, there is no testcode.. 08:57:02 <hyunsikyang> To make a test code for my patch..https://review.opendev.org/#/c/674761/ 08:57:52 <hyunsikyang> Can I just make a test code for function? 08:59:24 <dkushwaha> hyunsikyang, we should add unit test at least 09:00:09 <hyunsikyang> OK. I just check it for that . And If I have a more time, I will think about C-VNF Test code. 09:00:16 <dkushwaha> functional test is also required but I hope it can be done in some other patch 09:01:26 <dkushwaha> time up.. 09:01:38 <dkushwaha> Closing this meeting. Will be available on tacker channel 09:01:52 <dkushwaha> Thanks Folks for joining. 09:01:59 <dkushwaha> #endmeeting