08:03:23 <yasufum> #startmeeting tacker
08:03:24 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jul 21 08:03:23 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is yasufum. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:03:25 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
08:03:27 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tacker'
08:04:00 <yasufum> Is there any topic for the meeting today?
08:04:34 <takahashi-tsc> I have topics about my 2 Spec status and TST meeting.
08:06:34 <yasufum> I have two topics, but priority is not so high. So, please start from takahashi-tsc.
08:06:45 <yasufum> #topic etsi-nfv-tst
08:07:34 <takahashi-tsc> Sure, as I said last meeting, I'd like to request input parameter coverage of test code to TST members.
08:07:42 <takahashi-tsc> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tacker-meeting
08:08:11 <takahashi-tsc> See L252-
08:08:58 <takahashi-tsc> My request is test all patterns which is clearly specified in SOL docs like L253-264.
08:10:57 <takahashi-tsc> If definition is not clear, we should propose how to define all test. My proposal is we do 2 tests, testing with input which include all attributes is set, and testing input which is only include minimum necessary attributes.
08:11:36 <takahashi-tsc> L256-271
08:11:52 <takahashi-tsc> So I'd like to know tacker members' comment about it.
08:13:00 <takahashi-tsc> Ah... I forget to write URL of SOL003 and SOL013. I write it.
08:14:12 <yoshito-ito> Let me confirm what the main topic is
08:14:58 <yoshito-ito> As shown from L106, we have the request to show a clear coverage of TST
08:15:30 <yoshito-ito> and we have three main check points; Response code, HTTP response header, and Input parameter
08:16:04 <takahashi-tsc> Right.
08:16:04 <yoshito-ito> We are discussing how the "Input parameter" should be defined in tests
08:16:13 <takahashi-tsc> Yes, right.
08:16:43 <yoshito-ito> Then, takahashi-tsc is proposing "testing with input which include all attributes is set, and testing input which is only include minimum necessary attributes"
08:16:54 <yoshito-ito> right?
08:17:23 <takahashi-tsc> Yes, but this is just *my* proposal, all combination pattern may be large size and I do not know it is meaningful.
08:17:47 <takahashi-tsc> So I'd like to know comment about it.
08:18:21 <yoshito-ito> Exactly, I agree to have a clear approach to define it not to have too many conbinations.
08:18:57 <yoshito-ito> I agree with takahashi-tsc's idea. That can be the minimum set to test.
08:21:46 <takahashi-tsc> Are there any comment? or if you have some comments, please write in etherpad
08:22:34 <takahashi-tsc> Comment by end of this week can be included in TST meeting proposal.
08:22:48 <yasufum> Your proposal means, in other word, define mandatory and optional clearly, right?
08:22:59 <yasufum> about input params
08:23:24 <yasufum> not params, but attributes
08:24:47 <takahashi-tsc> Yes, in addition, I want to clarify mandatory and optional attributes in test codes.
08:25:12 <yasufum> I understand.
08:25:58 <yasufum> What do you think to update our test code in addition to propose it to TST if neccesary?
08:26:45 <yasufum> Is it not required currently?
08:27:50 <takahashi-tsc> Do you mean update for Tacker teams? i.e. How to manage our internal test code update?
08:29:12 <yasufum> Yes. I think current tacker’s test codes are not perfect, and required some updates from your point of view of the suggestion.
08:29:39 <yasufum> possibly, I mean.
08:31:21 <takahashi-tsc> Understood, I think we need some update. But such update should be defined clearly. 1 example is "test list" in my Robot Framework sepc, which select only test for Tacker support API.
08:32:03 <takahashi-tsc> I'd like to continue to discuss it. We make clear documentation about how to use TST code, including  update.
08:32:27 <yasufum> OK, thanks
08:34:57 <yasufum> Is there any comment, or can we go to the next topic?
08:36:12 <takahashi-tsc> Can I go next topic? it is just about spec status.
08:36:12 <hyunsikyang> Hi I am late.  I had a seminar today.
08:36:29 <yasufum> hi
08:36:34 <yoshito-ito> hi
08:36:49 <yasufum> #topic spec-status
08:37:18 <yasufum> takahashi-tsc: please share your status about specs
08:37:23 <takahashi-tsc> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/740896/
08:37:55 <takahashi-tsc> Spec about customize LCM workflow is completed, I'm glad if you review it.
08:38:21 <takahashi-tsc> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/732367/
08:38:40 <takahashi-tsc> Thank you for comment about Robot Framework use spec.
08:39:34 <takahashi-tsc> yoshito-ito Sorry but I want to confirm. Last comment means that you think spec is needed to be updated?
08:40:23 <yasufum> I did not find the first one. I would like to check it.
08:41:19 <yoshito-ito> I will.
08:43:12 <yasufum> It seems enough for this topic, so go to the next topic.
08:43:55 <yasufum> #topic tacker-studio
08:45:08 <yasufum> I have started review remained patches. This is one of them.
08:45:16 <yasufum> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/547018/
08:45:38 <yoshito-ito> takahashi-tsc: I'll update my comment on the patch
08:45:52 <yoshito-ito> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/732367/
08:46:05 <yoshito-ito> sorry pls move to the next topic
08:46:18 <yasufum> OK. no problem.
08:46:25 <takahashi-tsc> Thanks
08:47:03 <hyunsikyang> I will review it to:)
08:47:05 <hyunsikyang> too.
08:47:37 <yasufum> I understand that dharmendra agreed to merge it, but there is no update because Trinh seems left from tacker dev.
08:48:01 <hyunsikyang> yes. right
08:48:07 <yasufum> As current status, we have no one has responsibility for that.
08:48:11 <hyunsikyang> no one handle that thing.
08:48:20 <hyunsikyang> right..
08:48:24 <hyunsikyang> he left.
08:48:37 <yasufum> I have wondered that we should continue to develop this feature, or drop it.
08:49:05 <hyunsikyang> if no one want to handle it, we should remove it.
08:49:30 <hyunsikyang> Let's check it it necessary or not.
08:49:31 <yoshito-ito> +1
08:49:58 <hyunsikyang> Let's discuss it next week and vote it.
08:50:04 <hyunsikyang> :)
08:50:23 <takahashi-tsc> Sure.
08:50:46 <yasufum> Thanks. I think it is wounderful if this feature is implemented in tacker.
08:51:03 <yasufum> Please continue to discuss.
08:51:36 <yasufum> I have one more topic about doc update.
08:51:45 <yasufum> # topic doc-update
08:51:51 <yasufum> #topic doc-update
08:51:56 <hyunsikyang> thanks yasfum:)
08:52:41 <yasufum> As we agreed in the previous PTG, I have started to revise docs.
08:53:43 <hyunsikyang> good:D
08:53:58 <yasufum> And I find that our doc is described based on Ubuntu, but not care about redhat distro, such as fedora or centos.
08:54:10 <yasufum> So I think we need to support them.
08:54:26 <yasufum> But I am not sure how we start to do.
08:54:44 <yasufum> Do you have any comment?
08:55:30 <takahashi-tsc> support means both "Tacker can run on redhat distro" and "docs show how to run Tacker on redhat distro"?
08:56:21 <takahashi-tsc> And is there any issues about ”Tacker can run...”?
08:56:23 <yasufum> yes. I mean the lackness of manuals for installation and how to use
08:56:37 <yasufum> and so one
08:57:17 <yoshito-ito> I think we can update or add new installation guide for redhat distro
08:57:29 <yoshito-ito> or do we have any other docs to be updated?
08:58:53 <yasufum> I think covering installation and configuration is enogh basically.
08:59:14 <yasufum> Usage is almost the same among them.
09:01:05 <yasufum> Do you anyone raise a hand for the task kindly?
09:01:55 <yasufum> Or I would like to register it to blueprint as a next TODO, now…
09:03:01 <yoshito-ito> Will it be a task till V release?
09:03:24 <yasufum> I am not sure, but sooner is better.
09:03:42 <yasufum> Oops, it is the end of the time. Please continue to discuss in the next meeting. thanks.
09:03:50 <manpreet> I have few general queries, first would like to know whether we backport documentation bugs in tacker, as I could see Bug #1887151 persist in Ussuri release docs.
09:03:51 <openstack> bug 1887151 in tacker "Incorrect document link in Tacker Manual Installation " [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1887151 - Assigned to Manpreet Kaur (manpreetk)
09:04:20 <manpreet> Second in the current release could we fix documentation bug detected in the older release?
09:04:26 <manpreet> Please comment..
09:05:48 <yasufum> manpreet: Thanks for your suggestions. I understand these problems, and would like to go forward.
09:06:52 <yasufum> I would like to make it clear how we do backporting.
09:07:51 <yasufum> Could we continue to discuss for making an agreement in the next meeting, or tacker IRC?
09:09:07 <manpreet> Thank you, yes we could discuss in next meeting.
09:09:28 <manpreet> Last I would like to share my interest in networking-sfc on going participation.
09:10:31 <manpreet> Thank you thats all from my side.
09:10:51 <yasufum> Thanks
09:12:12 <yasufum> Thank you for joining, bye
09:12:18 <takahashi-tsc> Thanks
09:12:25 <yoshito-ito> thank you. bye
09:12:33 <yasufum> #endmeeting tacker