08:03:20 #startmeeting tacker 08:03:20 Meeting started Tue Aug 3 08:03:20 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is yasufum. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 08:03:20 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 08:03:20 The meeting name has been set to 'tacker' 08:03:54 hi 08:04:10 hi 08:04:53 hi 08:05:04 let’s start today’s meeting. 08:05:35 We have two topics on etherpad. 08:05:38 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tacker-meeting 08:06:26 Can we start from w-juso? 08:06:36 ok 08:06:55 #topic About FT for multi-tenant support 08:07:24 I updated FT of notification, at etherpad L21-27 08:07:35 Please check its. 08:09:18 I consider how to test of FT with we discuss previous meeting. 08:11:13 There is no judgment function to send, therefore I think of making a decision on the receiving of notification. 08:11:50 then, I have one concern. 08:13:14 how to decide that it hasn't received any notification. 08:15:39 one way, there is a method of set timestamp 08:16:15 but, depending on the performance, misjudgment may occur. 08:17:12 I would like your comments on these methods, thank you. 08:18:08 thanks 08:18:12 any comment? 08:22:04 I’d confirm the meaning of ‘timestamp’ and ‘misjudgement’. 08:24:36 This method, the test succeeds if no Notifications are received. 08:25:36 therefore, I think that there is a possibility of success even when the test code is not working. 08:30:14 Are you talking about misjudgement? 08:30:27 sorry, yes 08:30:41 about timestamp 08:32:40 I understand that reciver server check its own log to confirm that it has received the notification. 08:34:42 notificaiton server will check its own log after a certain time, then haven't received any notifications. 08:35:41 In this method, this certain time is timestamp. 08:35:56 Currently, this decision is not implemented. 08:42:15 I might be feasible, but not sure actually. 08:43:43 I’m not clear your whole test senario, so I don’t understand it’s best way. 08:45:25 I appreciate if anyone have a suggestion for w-juso. 08:51:48 w-juso: Why don’t you add about your test implementation on your spec to get opinion from team? 08:52:52 It might be something difficult to give advice only understanding from current spec and notes on etherpad. 08:52:58 What do you think? 08:54:30 thanks for your suggestion. ok, I'll update the spec and add the information detail. 08:55:11 It’s OK to continue this discussion on tacker’s IRC channel or openstack discussion ML or so. 08:55:56 I’ll respond to you. 08:56:23 thanks your support. 08:57:00 If no more comment, go to the next topic. 08:57:24 ueha: Can you share your topic? 08:57:52 just asking to review? 09:01:23 Umm… he is not here, and an excuse for his absence is noted on etherpad :) 09:02:02 Please help reviewing for his patch 09:02:05 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/800588 09:03:40 Is there any asking for review? 09:04:36 or topic or suggestion? 09:05:55 Can I share just information related to my match? 09:06:09 sure 09:06:31 Today, we uploaded a patch for v2 LCM API to gerrit as WIP. 09:06:39 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/803295 09:07:03 Though the main code has already been developed, details are being created. 09:07:19 We will split the patch into small pieces and updating them as soon as possible. 09:07:33 Please wait for reviewing it. 09:07:43 Thank you for your patience. 09:08:12 that's all from my side. 09:08:30 I’ll wait for your update. Thanks. 09:09:49 It seems done all for today. 09:10:37 Thank you for joining. Bye. 09:11:11 #endmeeting