08:00:56 <yasufum> #startmeeting tacker 08:00:56 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Aug 2 08:00:56 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is yasufum. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 08:00:56 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 08:00:56 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tacker' 08:01:12 <yuta-kazato> hi 08:01:37 <yasufum> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tacker-meeting 08:02:38 <yasufum> As you may notice, we have some problems on zuul gate tests. 08:03:13 <yasufum> ueha has shared the causes and candidate fixes. 08:03:24 <yasufum> could you share your item? 08:03:29 <ueha> Sure 08:03:34 <yasufum> #topic sharing about current zuul testing 08:03:41 <yasufum> pls go ahead 08:03:45 <ueha> First of all, regarding UT error, 08:04:11 <ueha> An update of the jsonschema is causing an IP address validation failure (mismatch_error). 08:04:58 <ueha> Yi Feng reported in bug report https://bugs.launchpad.net/tacker/+bug/1983067 . 08:06:08 <ueha> This is because the fake data value used in the test is incorrect. It is defined "192.168.11.01" as IP address. 08:06:50 <yasufum> It's silly actually :) 08:07:06 <ueha> And now, this problem fixed in the patch posted by Yi Feng. 08:07:09 <ueha> > Fix IPv4 check failure in UT: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/851478 08:07:54 <ueha> UT now passes in above patch! However, the other FT error occurs.. (Also occurs in other patches) 08:08:29 <ueha> Next, regarding the FT error, 08:09:43 <ueha> The error occurs on the start of the ceilometer, 500 error seems to occurs in gnocchiclient 08:10:24 <ueha> The same error occurred in the following ceilometer patch, so I think we must wait for a fix of ceilometer or library related with gnocchi. 08:10:38 <ueha> We haven't looked into the exact cause, but if it takes too long to fix, we might need to consider a workaround.. 08:10:50 <ueha> That's all from myside. thanks 08:11:24 <yasufum> Thanks 08:11:49 <yasufum> Any comment? 08:12:00 <manpreetk> ueha: Suggestion, we could ask telementry guys to look into ceilometer issue on priority. 08:12:14 <yasufum> great! 08:13:13 <ueha> Sure, I haven't contacted the teletemtry team yet. 08:13:35 <manpreetk> Okiee 08:13:55 <yasufum> hirofumi-noguchi: Do you have any comment because you've also started to start the FT error? 08:14:12 <yasufum> s/to start/to fix/ 08:15:40 <hirofumi-noguchi> I agree with ueha. I would like to wait for a fix of ceilometer. 08:15:53 <ueha> The ceilometer patch has occured same problem, so I think it is handled with high priority in their team, but I will report to them. 08:17:18 <yasufum> Thanks both for your help. 08:17:51 <yasufum> It seems enough for the first item. 08:18:02 <yasufum> Let's move on to the next one. 08:18:06 <yasufum> #topic An observation in the existing VNF LCM Multi-tenant policy design 08:18:19 <yasufum> from manpreetk 08:18:43 <manpreetk> Shall I proceed? 08:18:47 <yasufum> sure 08:18:50 <manpreetk> Thanks 08:18:55 <manpreetk> In current VNF LCM Multi-tenant policy implementation to get details of a subscription or VNF package of a different tenant returns HTTP code 204 (No content) in response. Please find details in L42. 08:18:55 <manpreetk> In our(NEC) opinion HTTP status code should be 404 (Not found). 08:18:55 <manpreetk> 08:18:55 <manpreetk> Please share your valuable opinion for the same, what according to you is the *correct* status code 204 or 404 in above scenario? 08:24:55 <yasufum> Thanks. 08:25:15 <yasufum> Do you have any comment for the topic? 08:26:41 <w-juso> As an addition, we think that 204 is not possible because SOL003 5.4.3.3.2 only allows 200 OK. 08:26:47 <w-juso> https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-SOL/001_099/003/02.06.01_60/gs_NFV-SOL003v020601p.pdf 08:26:59 <yasufum> hmm... 08:27:35 <ueha> I have a question, what about Individual VNF Instance or other Individual Resources? 08:28:07 <ueha> return 404 Notfound..? 08:29:17 <ueha> I was curious because only Subscription and Package were mentioned. 08:31:12 <manpreetk> ueha: I have observed behaviour in multi tenant env, need to check for single VNF instance. 08:33:52 <masaki-ueno> I think 4xx errors seems to be correct to be returned, but there may be some choices for the error. 08:34:14 <masaki-ueno> I mean, 403 and 404 are possible for that kind of situation 08:35:23 <takahashi-tsc> masaki-ueno: yes, actually we have similar discussion... My opinion is 404 is better, but what do you think? 08:36:10 <masaki-ueno> However, in general, accessing to unauthorized resources should be returned 404 error. 08:37:00 <masaki-ueno> (As you know, SaaS services such as Github has such behavior :) 08:37:46 <masaki-ueno> So I think 404 seems to be more reasonable according to generic HTTP usage 08:37:53 <takahashi-tsc> +1 08:40:26 <ueha> +1. Also, I think it is necessary to investigate if there is an effect on other Individual Resources such as VNF instance, OpOccs, etc. 08:42:34 <yasufum> manpreetk: Could you make it clear the next work item on the etherpad if no other opposition? 08:45:12 <manpreetk> yasufum: Sorry could you please explain what is required from me regarding next work item? I do not understand :( 08:45:59 <yasufum> Just note the conclusion on the meeting. 08:46:18 <manpreetk> Understood 08:49:31 <yasufum> The last item is just a confirmation of reviewing remained specs. 08:51:36 <yasufum> I think only one spec remained for the release, and all other ones have already merged. 08:52:11 <yasufum> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker-specs/+/834156 08:52:44 <yasufum> mapreetk: Could I confirm the status of your spec? 08:54:42 <yasufum> I'm not sure there is any concerns about RBAC for the spec, or nothing on the release. 08:55:09 <yasufum> because I cannot catch up the discussion, sorry... 09:00:30 <yasufum> manpreetk: is it ready to be merged? 09:01:02 <manpreetk> The spec needs some update work, as per investigation "heat" only allows "admin" role user to create stack. So such details need to be add in spec. 09:02:09 <yasufum> OK, thanks. 09:04:33 <yasufum> So, all topics done for today, but do you have any other comment? 09:04:40 <yasufum> Or reqeust for review? 09:06:48 <yasufum> good 09:07:37 <yasufum> Let's close this meeting. 09:07:45 <yasufum> Thank you for joining, bye! 09:07:51 <yuta-kazato> thanks. bye! 09:07:51 <masaki-ueno> bye 09:07:52 <ueha> thanks, bye 09:07:52 <manpreetk> Thanks all, bye 09:07:54 <takahashi-tsc> bye 09:07:58 <ma-ooyama> bye 09:07:59 <w-juso> bye 09:08:01 <Ramona-ho-xu> bye 09:08:06 <yasufum> #endmeeting