12:01:17 <chandankumar> #startmeeting watcher
12:01:17 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu Jan 29 12:01:17 2026 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is chandankumar. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
12:01:17 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
12:01:17 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'watcher'
12:01:25 <chandankumar> o/
12:01:28 <dviroel> o/
12:01:35 <jgilaber> o/
12:01:50 <chandankumar> courtesy ping list: sean-k-mooney rlandy amoralej morenod
12:01:58 <amoralej> o/
12:01:59 <morenod> o/
12:01:59 <rlandy> o/
12:02:14 <chandankumar> thank you for joining the meeting.
12:02:25 <chandankumar> let's get started with the today's meeting agenda
12:02:38 <chandankumar> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L23
12:02:57 <chandankumar> feel free to add your topic to the agenda
12:03:41 <chandankumar> #topic Reset the DPL model for watcher project
12:03:51 <chandankumar> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/974926
12:04:39 <chandankumar> Since new openstack release is coming, TC has proposed the above patch to reset the DPL model for watcher project
12:05:04 <chandankumar> for 2026.2, Do we want to continue the DPL model or anyone wants to step up for Watcher PTL?
12:05:38 <dviroel> o/
12:05:43 <chandankumar> If we want to continue the DPL model in that case, we need to find liasions for different tasks.
12:06:07 <dviroel> i do have plans to add my candidacy for PTL for next cycle
12:06:28 <dviroel> so i would propose to allow the DPL reset patch merge
12:06:57 <chandankumar> dviroel: wonderful!
12:07:39 <chandankumar> dviroel: I think We still need liasions for different task to assist PTL during the whole release.
12:07:46 <dviroel> right!
12:08:13 <dviroel> i would still need assistance for liaisons in release and security context at least :)
12:08:55 <chandankumar> jgilaber: and me are the current liasons for release and sean-k-mooney was looking after security.
12:09:18 <chandankumar> we can check with them if they want to continue for next release.
12:09:20 <jgilaber> thanks for stepping up dviroel I can continue as release liaison
12:10:00 <chandankumar> I also happy to help anywhere if you need more hands.
12:10:06 <dviroel> jgilaber: tks, we can chat about that after elections then, which start in the following weeks
12:10:16 <dviroel> #link https://governance.openstack.org/election/
12:10:39 <dviroel> someone needs to be elected first :)
12:10:53 <chandankumar> PTL nominations will start next week i.e 4th Feb.
12:11:02 <dviroel> +1
12:11:33 <jgilaber> for now we just need to +1 the TC patch to reset to PTL and that it right?
12:11:40 <dviroel> right
12:12:09 <jgilaber> ack thanks
12:12:11 <chandankumar> everyone feel free to add your votes on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/974926
12:13:00 <dviroel> ack
12:13:04 <chandankumar> I think we are all sorted on this topic. we have a upcoming PTL nomination from dviroel and new liasons. Anything more to discuss on this
12:13:43 <rlandy> +1
12:13:56 <dviroel> we can continue I think
12:14:15 <chandankumar> next topic
12:14:23 <chandankumar> #topic Deciding watcher-dashboard integration testing framework
12:14:40 <chandankumar> We are already discussing about watcher-dashboard integration testing poc in multiple meetings.
12:14:50 <chandankumar> I have updated the spec with selenium vs playwright comparison for a watcher developer point of view:
12:15:00 <chandankumar> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/970220/10/specs/2026.2/approved/improve-watcher-dashboard-ui-testing.rst#L163
12:15:16 <chandankumar> html version: https://abad4d81dfb03b4f334d-70b013fe9ea05f673313d916271f541a.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/openstack/b38087f5bdb4410294bd985e1d93a099/docs/specs/2026.2/approved/improve-watcher-dashboard-ui-testing.html#playwright-vs-selenium-poc-notes-watcher-developer-view
12:15:28 <chandankumar> I wanted to check with the team to make a final decision on integration testing framework
12:15:38 <chandankumar> so that Devs can start adding the integration tests for watcher-dashboard features.
12:16:05 <morenod> I've been playing with playwright. my vote is for it
12:17:33 <jgilaber> I have no direct experience, but my impression from reviewing the POCs and spec, and from previous discussions it seems playwright has some advantages over selenium
12:17:38 <jgilaber> so +1 from me
12:17:42 <amoralej> everything i saw from playwright seems to sounds as better or equal than selenium in testing capabilities and user experience
12:17:42 <chandankumar> How do we want to vote on this? Do we need +1 on the spec itself with the test framework name?
12:17:52 <amoralej> by user, i mean developers :)
12:18:11 <amoralej> and also for integration in CI jobs
12:18:18 <sean-k-mooney> well normally we dont vote persay
12:18:22 <jgilaber> imo we should update the spec to propose playwright as the test framework
12:18:27 <sean-k-mooney> more lazy concenus
12:18:28 <jgilaber> and list selenium as a possible alternative
12:18:41 <sean-k-mooney> but it seam we are gravatating to playright
12:18:46 <dviroel> chandankumar: you did a great job on both PoCs +1 - taking over the notes I have the impression that playwright is best
12:19:00 <amoralej> and i guess we will be able to handle adding it to the global-requirements
12:19:03 <sean-k-mooney> so what i woudl suggest is to update the spec to propsoe using that and move selenium to the alternives section
12:19:26 <chandankumar> wonderful, everyone is in favor of selenium.
12:19:34 <sean-k-mooney> amoralej: ya that should not be hard but we should start the process early
12:19:38 <amoralej> +1
12:19:45 <chandankumar> *everyone is in favor of playwright
12:19:48 <sean-k-mooney> dont you mean playrgiht
12:19:52 <sean-k-mooney> :)
12:20:18 <chandankumar> I will update the spec with playwright and move selenium as a alternative.
12:20:23 <dviroel> +1
12:20:40 <chandankumar> Thank you all for taking the time to go over spec and poc and finalizing the tool.
12:20:45 <sean-k-mooney> ok then once you have updated the spec to say that we can review it and start working on the reqiurements change and reviwign the changes once the master banch is 2026.2
12:21:03 <chandankumar> +1
12:21:31 <sean-k-mooney> are we finished with this topic
12:21:55 <sean-k-mooney> if so before we go to reviews per the adgenda i woudl like to talk abotu some release stuff
12:22:02 <amoralej> thanks chandankumar++
12:22:09 <chandankumar> yes
12:22:16 <chandankumar> sean-k-mooney: sure
12:22:29 <chandankumar> #topic release
12:22:35 <chandankumar> sean-k-mooney: please go ahead
12:23:02 <sean-k-mooney> ok so first release topic. let try and do some stable release next week. my proposal is lets do some stable reviews today and tomorrwo and then work on proposing the release early next week
12:23:26 <dviroel> +1
12:23:37 <jgilaber> +1
12:23:39 <chandankumar> +1
12:23:46 <sean-k-mooney> second related topic is we are startign to get close to FF so there are some release tasks liek starting on the prelude and marketing highlight that we will need to start soon
12:24:29 <sean-k-mooney> we have another week or two before we actully need to do those so that just an fyi that we shoudl consult the chronalgical release guide and prepare for those tasks in the next few weeks
12:24:43 <sean-k-mooney> we can loop back to that in the next meeting or the one after
12:25:06 <sean-k-mooney> that was basically all i wanted to bring up
12:25:41 <chandankumar> Do we need a voluteer for creating prelude and marketing highlights?
12:26:00 <rlandy> I can try
12:26:18 <jgilaber> I can also help with that
12:26:33 <sean-k-mooney> they offially are duties of the release liason but anyone can propose them
12:26:56 <sean-k-mooney> it just need a release liason to approve the marketing highlight patch in the release repo
12:26:57 <jgilaber> just checked, FF is the week of Feb 23 - Feb 27
12:27:25 <sean-k-mooney> yep and the non clinet lib freeze if feb 9th
12:27:37 <sean-k-mooney> well week of feb 9th
12:28:09 <chandankumar> rlandy: jgilaber thank you for volunteering.
12:28:29 <sean-k-mooney> the prelude shoudl be doen at or aroudn FF but before RC1 the hilights shoudl be the first week of march at the latest
12:28:34 <chandankumar> Once the prelude review is up, we can follow up in next meeting .
12:29:36 <chandankumar> ok
12:31:14 <chandankumar> just to summarize: We will focus on reviews for stable branches this week to prepare a new stable release next week. Release liason will work on crafting the prelude and marking stuff.
12:31:45 <chandankumar> Anything else to discuss on this topic
12:32:03 <sean-k-mooney> ya so we have 3-4 weeks for those artifact to be created but its just good to start a head of time so we are not in a rush
12:32:29 <sean-k-mooney> we can likely move to the reviews i think we are dont with this topic
12:32:41 <chandankumar> #topic reviews
12:32:51 <chandankumar> #link     Enable extra zone migration tests on master branch | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/970381
12:34:12 <jgilaber> I added this patch
12:34:24 <chandankumar> As the review says it enables extra zone migration tests on master branch, Depends on already got merged.
12:34:40 <jgilaber> it's a small patch adding some zone migration tests that we put behing a config flag in the tempest plugin
12:35:00 <jgilaber> they work in master, but need some bugfixes to be backported in the stable branches
12:35:30 <jgilaber> the patch is only for master, I can backport it as well once/if we merge those bugfixes
12:35:38 <dviroel> +1
12:35:48 <sean-k-mooney> looks fine to me
12:36:07 <sean-k-mooney> double workflow :)
12:36:22 <jgilaber> thanks!
12:36:22 <dviroel> lol
12:36:26 <chandankumar> wonderful
12:36:37 <chandankumar> #link     stable 2025.2 open reviews: https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/watcher+branch:stable/2025.2+is:open
12:37:03 <dviroel> i added these earlier
12:37:16 <dviroel> just to reminder about stable branches reviews
12:37:28 <chandankumar> we have many reviews which needs one more +2 and +w in 2025.2
12:37:31 <sean-k-mooney> ah i see you found time to review them last week cool
12:37:45 <dviroel> I did some reviews on 2025.2 and will start 2025.1
12:37:57 <chandankumar> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/watcher+branch:stable/2025.1+is:open
12:38:00 <sean-k-mooney> cool i will look at them after the meeting as well
12:38:44 <chandankumar> everyone please have a look at 2025.1 and 2025.2 series, it will help us to make new release next week
12:38:50 <chandankumar> that's it from review
12:39:53 <chandankumar> #topic Bugs
12:40:03 <chandankumar> I can see two untriaged bugs in watcher-tempest-plugin
12:40:28 <chandankumar> #link  Race condition in test_continuous_audit_actionplan_superseding https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher-tempest-plugin/+bug/2136124
12:41:29 <sean-k-mooney> it sound valid proably medium
12:41:44 <sean-k-mooney> any instablity causes ci impact that we want to avoid
12:42:54 <chandankumar> thanks sean-k-mooney
12:42:58 <chandankumar> triaged !
12:43:15 <sean-k-mooney> my guess is we need a retry loop to stablise it
12:43:41 <amoralej> or cancel the old actionplans after the new one is created instead
12:44:10 <sean-k-mooney> perhaps
12:44:29 <sean-k-mooney> i guess either would be ok
12:44:46 <dviroel> amoralej: do you have a patch or plan to work on one?
12:44:55 <amoralej> not
12:45:10 <amoralej> just reported, tbh
12:45:55 <amoralej> but I'd say, the alternative is to move cancelling around https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/2ba9caae744db2f62e6a57e25069ac364ec54ffc/watcher/decision_engine/audit/base.py#L94
12:46:01 <dviroel> ack, just want to know to update the assignee
12:46:40 <amoralej> although, we may have the oposite race condition ...
12:46:50 <amoralej> having two recommended APs for a while
12:47:43 <amoralej> the retrying loop doesn't sounds bad now :)
12:47:58 <sean-k-mooney> we shouldnt
12:48:19 <sean-k-mooney> becuase the previousl recommened plan shoudl be move to superceeded
12:48:40 <sean-k-mooney> we may have a bug if we we are not doing both in a single transaction i guess
12:48:46 <sean-k-mooney> that woudl be a watcher bug
12:48:52 <amoralej> yes, that's the issue
12:49:09 <sean-k-mooney> as i dont think we are ever meent to have more the 1 recomemend action plan
12:49:46 <amoralej> no, we shouldn't
12:50:00 <amoralej> we need to make both state changes atomically
12:50:16 <amoralej> adding the new AP and changing the state of the old one
12:50:21 <sean-k-mooney> yep hence same transaction or we woudl neeed a db trigger
12:50:58 <sean-k-mooney> we dont tend to use triggers in openstack so same transacton woudl be the correct fix
12:52:02 <sean-k-mooney> lets revisit this when someone starts working on the bug fix but we might end up fixing it in watcher instead
12:52:17 <sean-k-mooney> we shoudl dig a little deeper before updating the test
12:52:20 <amoralej> btw, we don't use SUPERSEDED state for this use case (old APs in a continuous Audit, when a new one is created) but CANCELLED
12:52:57 <amoralej> we use superseded only for time based expiration iirc
12:53:46 <sean-k-mooney> so cacled for an action plan si only valid if the action plan is runnng
12:54:00 <sean-k-mooney> and if it running it should not be canceld by the creation fo a new action plan
12:54:04 <sean-k-mooney> it should run to completion
12:54:29 <amoralej> https://docs.openstack.org/watcher/latest/architecture.html#action-plan-state-machine
12:54:40 <amoralej> APs can be moved from RECOMMENDED to CANCELLED
12:55:07 <sean-k-mooney> if and only if a admin does it
12:55:09 <amoralej> that's actually used when an user wants to avoid running it
12:55:12 <amoralej> yes, exactly
12:55:33 <sean-k-mooney> right but if we are testing supperceded as the name impleis the tempst shoudl not call cancel at all
12:55:37 <amoralej> well, in current implementation alse for continuous audits when a new AP is created
12:56:10 <amoralej> ah, superseding is actually missleading
12:56:26 <amoralej> continuous actionplans do not use superseded status right now
12:56:34 <sean-k-mooney> right so that a bug
12:56:49 <sean-k-mooney> a diffent bug but a bug
12:56:56 <amoralej> yeah, it'd may make sense use superseded instead of cancelled for this
12:57:02 <amoralej> dunno if that's documented tbh
12:57:03 <sean-k-mooney> watcher should not move it to canceled when the new action plan is created
12:57:16 <sean-k-mooney> well that what the state machine doc says we shoudl be doing
12:58:16 <dviroel> yeah, that's my understanding to, from the docs/state machine
12:58:50 <sean-k-mooney> i dont think there shoudl be an state change form recommend to cancheld ever for what its worth
12:59:33 <amoralej> so the bug is "Watcher is setting previous APs as CANCELLED instead of SUPERSEDED when a new one is created in a CONTINUOUS audit" ?
12:59:55 <sean-k-mooney> you should be able to go form recommend to deleted directly or recommend to supseeded automaticlly
13:00:16 <sean-k-mooney> right cnceled should only be reachable form the ongoing state in my view
13:00:40 <sean-k-mooney> well perhaps also form bending
13:00:40 <amoralej> or by admin api call, right?
13:00:44 <sean-k-mooney> *pending
13:00:47 <sean-k-mooney> no
13:01:05 <chandankumar> here is the action plan state machine diagram https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/master/doc/source/image_src/plantuml/action_plan_state_machine.txt
13:01:08 <sean-k-mooney> im saying that is not somethign we shoudl be supproting
13:01:08 <amoralej> we need it with the current wf
13:01:21 <amoralej> as we can not delete a recommended AP
13:01:23 <sean-k-mooney> right im saying that workflow is invlaid semanticly
13:01:52 <sean-k-mooney> the replacement workflow would be recommend to deleted directly or recomened eto superseeded
13:02:01 <amoralej> tbh, i think it's fine a user can CANCEL it before deleting it
13:02:22 <amoralej> deleting it means, no way to see it anymore
13:02:36 <sean-k-mooney> i dont think cancel is valid if it not running (pending or ongoing) that my general point if it did not start it cant be canceled
13:02:37 <dviroel> yeah, what looks weird is to Cancel something that was not even running/started
13:03:09 <amoralej> someone may be interested in running an audit, cancel but keep it to see the efficacy indicators, i.e. and compare to a new execution of the audit
13:03:26 <amoralej> we may use a different state name, but imo, the use case is valid
13:03:26 <sean-k-mooney> right so a user shoudl be able to delete the recommened action plan. and watcher shoudl automaticlly mvoe ti to superseded instead of cancled when a new action plan is created IMO
13:04:19 <amoralej> anyway, I will report this bug, no need to agree on a solution now
13:04:23 <sean-k-mooney> lets leave this for now and leave a note in the bug
13:04:29 <sean-k-mooney> ack
13:04:29 <dviroel> +1
13:05:03 <chandankumar> I am moving to last topic as we passed the meeting time limit
13:05:13 <chandankumar> #topic volunteer for next meeting
13:05:36 <chandankumar> anyone up for chairing the next meeting?
13:06:43 <morenod> I will
13:06:53 <chandankumar> thanks morenod
13:07:04 <chandankumar> #endmeeting