12:01:25 <rlandy> #startmeeting Watcher Weekly meeting: 05 June 2025 12:01:25 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu Jun 5 12:01:25 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rlandy. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:01:25 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 12:01:25 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'watcher_weekly_meeting__05_june_2025' 12:01:34 <rlandy> hello - who's around? 12:01:38 <amoralej> o/ 12:01:45 <rlandy> courtesy ping list: dviroel amoralej jgilaber sean-k-mooney chandankumar 12:02:03 <jgilaber> o/ 12:02:13 <rlandy> chandankumar is out sick so I will be covering chair today 12:04:03 <jneo8> Is there meeting today? 12:04:05 <rlandy> ok - let's begin ... 12:04:23 <rlandy> jneo8: yes - you are right on time for your topic :) 12:04:34 <rlandy> #topic: (jneo8) Next step for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/943873 12:05:01 <rlandy> jneo8: would you like to take that? 12:05:26 <jneo8> Yet, just want to know if there any request to change the spec? Or I should start the implementation? 12:06:08 <rlandy> looks like you have a +2 from sean-k-mooney 12:06:17 <amoralej> given the existing votes, it seems safe to start implementing it 12:06:36 <rlandy> dviroel is the other core there - and he will be a bit late to this meeting 12:06:54 <rlandy> dviroel: pls see https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/943873 when you are around 12:07:01 <jgilaber> +1, I think you can start as well, merging it should be a matter of days now 12:07:24 <jneo8> I see, thanks. 12:07:28 <rlandy> jneo8: looks like you have consensus ... 12:07:44 <rlandy> hopefully dviroel can give a final word on his vote today 12:08:15 <rlandy> any other questions or issues to raise on this? 12:08:26 <jneo8> That will be pretty. But it's not rush. We can start the implementation I think. 12:08:48 <jneo8> No other questions. Thanks for the quick response. 12:09:07 <rlandy> ok - thank you jneo8 for raising this 12:09:22 <rlandy> moving on ... 12:09:34 <rlandy> #topic: Release activities 12:09:59 <rlandy> I know sean-k-mooney was busy with some release activities. Just wanted to check in if help was needed there 12:10:27 <rlandy> but we can revisit this topic when sean-k-mooney is around (unless anyone else knows the status?) 12:10:50 <sean-k-mooney> so somethign has come up that means i have to push that work for at least a wek 12:11:04 <sean-k-mooney> but if i need help i will ask. 12:11:26 <sean-k-mooney> if people have tiem to do stabel reviews i will factor that in wehn i do them myself next week 12:11:51 <sean-k-mooney> my current plan is ot propose a new set of release towards the end of next week 12:12:41 <rlandy> ok - thank you for the update 12:13:00 <rlandy> any other questions/concerns about release activities? 12:13:08 <amoralej> sean-k-mooney, what's the policy to get permissions on stable releases? there can be permissions to +2 in stable releases only? 12:14:09 <amoralej> we may free you from reviews in stable branches, usually are easyer to review 12:14:36 <opendevreview> David proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add tests for workload_balance with injected data https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/949722 12:15:45 <sean-k-mooney> sorry got pinned seperatly 12:16:07 <sean-k-mooney> amoralej: yes so stabel review rights can be granted without full core rights 12:16:24 <sean-k-mooney> the critiria is slightly diffent but the barrier to entry tends to be lower 12:17:02 <sean-k-mooney> so if folks demonstarte a familarity with applying stable policy 12:17:22 <sean-k-mooney> then i have no objection ot addign folks to the watcher-release-core team 12:18:19 <amoralej> ack, demostrate it by reviewing existing reviews in stable releases, i understand 12:18:51 <sean-k-mooney> exactly 12:19:22 <amoralej> ok, thanks 12:19:23 <sean-k-mooney> that and or proposing patches that you think are correct (wether you or someone else wrote the orginal patch) 12:19:44 <amoralej> makes sense 12:20:26 <sean-k-mooney> i think we can move on for now. 12:20:53 <sean-k-mooney> just to note i have a conflict with this meeting in 10 mins so ill keep an eye on the irc channel but i have an internal call 12:21:01 <sean-k-mooney> so i will be distracted 12:21:04 <rlandy> ok - thank you amoralej for your interest in stable reviews 12:21:14 <rlandy> moving on ... 12:21:28 <rlandy> #topic: (amoralej) Zone migration does not migrate both instances and storage in the same action plan https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2109722 12:21:37 <opendevreview> David proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add tests for workload balance with real data https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/950335 12:21:37 <amoralej> that's mine 12:21:54 <dviroel> o/ 12:22:06 <rlandy> amoralej: pls go ahead 12:22:07 <amoralej> I'll be working on that one, but i'd like to bring a question before sending any patch 12:22:27 <amoralej> currently zone_migration does no migrate volumes and instances in the same plan 12:22:47 <amoralej> it first checks volumes, and if there is any volume to be migrated, it ignores the instances part 12:23:12 <amoralej> with the exception of instances attached to the migrated volumes in case the option with_attached_volumes is enabled 12:23:24 <amoralej> I think that goes agains any expectation from a generic user 12:23:43 <amoralej> but changing that is a relevant change in the behavior 12:24:02 <amoralej> should i parametrize it and keep existing behavior by default? 12:24:23 <amoralej> or just treat it as a bug and fix it 12:24:49 <jgilaber> I consider it a bug because there is no indication that the current behaviour is expected 12:25:09 <jgilaber> if it were documented I would understand adding a parameter 12:25:37 <jgilaber> but in the current situation, I think the existing parameters give sufficient control to the user 12:26:19 <amoralej> that's right, documentation does not mentions the current behavior 12:27:00 <amoralej> https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/master/watcher/decision_engine/strategy/strategies/zone_migration.py#L288 is where it checks if there are volumes to be migrated 12:27:16 <amoralej> there is no comment or indication about why neither in the code 12:27:27 <sean-k-mooney> if we change the input parmers we shoud treat it as a feature enhacnment 12:28:01 <sean-k-mooney> i think we are likely going to need have other enhacnemtn to the volume logic in the future but i dont have tiem to going into that today 12:28:31 <amoralej> the point about the doc is fair 12:28:40 <sean-k-mooney> can we defer this topic for now and loop back to it asnc or next week 12:28:49 <amoralej> sure, no problem 12:28:52 <jgilaber> yes, we'll likely need to change the existing volume migration action, but I don't think this is directly related 12:28:56 <amoralej> or in the review itself 12:29:04 <jgilaber> but yes, we can revisit next meeting 12:30:00 <rlandy> we are also working on doc updates for zone migration so if there is something you want clarified there, it's in progress, pls comment 12:30:20 <rlandy> k - noting to pick this up next meeting ... 12:30:36 <rlandy> moving on ... 12:30:47 <rlandy> #topic: Call for reviews 12:30:59 <rlandy> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/951378 should improve reliability of the actuator job 12:31:23 <rlandy> morenod: ^^ this is yours 12:31:55 <morenod> yes. it is al ready to be merged, just waiting for another +2 12:32:24 <dviroel> morenod: sorry, i still owe a review there, i will check that today 12:32:34 <rlandy> thanks dviroel 12:32:37 <rlandy> next ... 12:32:37 <morenod> thanks! 12:32:43 <rlandy> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/951440 Add table - level of test/usage per strategy 12:32:55 <rlandy> that's mine 12:33:03 <rlandy> requesting help with the Horizon access info per strategy 12:33:41 <rlandy> if you have worked on a strategy and know whether is can be triggered from Horizon, pls comment 12:33:42 <rlandy> thank you 12:34:12 <amoralej> so, any strategy which has mandatory parameters with no default value can not be created from horizon dashboard 12:34:19 <amoralej> i can take a look 12:34:59 <rlandy> k - thanks ... 12:35:01 <rlandy> next 12:35:07 <rlandy> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/951699 951699: Add Integrations doc page with support matrix 12:35:12 <dviroel> just added :) 12:35:16 <rlandy> go4it 12:35:31 <dviroel> in the same line, it is a doc update to build a matrix of supported integrations 12:35:44 <dviroel> this is an action item from previous meeting 12:36:07 <dviroel> the idea is that we will now mark some services as experimental, due to the lack of docs and testing 12:36:27 <dviroel> i will update the patch which some suggestions from amoralej 12:36:35 <dviroel> then we shuould be good 12:36:53 <dviroel> next thing will be to add a warning message for those experimental integrations 12:37:01 <dviroel> this patch will be a follow up then 12:37:37 <rlandy> any more review to bring to attention? 12:39:02 <rlandy> ok - moving on ... 12:39:15 <rlandy> #topic: Bug Triage 12:39:36 <rlandy> we have carried these for two meetings idk if they are still relevant ... 12:39:51 <rlandy> Revisiting: https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2107467 (workload_stabilization strategy does not show standard_deviation if it's below the audit thre) 12:40:22 <rlandy> jgilaber: ^^ you logged this 12:40:33 <jgilaber> yes, we discussed this some time ago 12:40:55 <jgilaber> I included some more details after that meeting 12:41:06 <rlandy> it's assigned to you - do you need further discussion? 12:41:25 <jgilaber> we were missing to set the importance 12:41:40 <jgilaber> I think this can be set to low, since it's just a UX issue, the strategy is functional 12:42:08 <rlandy> any objections to this proposal ^^? 12:42:47 <amoralej> yes, i think it's low 12:43:23 <amoralej> but actually, i think we didn't get a clear conclussion about if that was a real bug or how to manage it 12:44:11 <jgilaber> yes, it wasn't clear how to fix it, but I don't have time to fix it now 12:44:17 <amoralej> yes 12:44:19 <jgilaber> I think we can revisit once it's being worked on 12:44:22 <amoralej> +1 12:45:26 <jgilaber> ack, setting the importance and moving it to triaged then, thanks! 12:45:26 <rlandy> jgilaber: all set here for now? 12:45:40 <jgilaber> yes 12:45:49 <rlandy> alright ... next 12:46:01 <rlandy> https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2110991 [doc] Plugin docs still refers to Voluptuous schemas 12:46:25 <dviroel> i filed this one, while looks through the documentation 12:46:47 <rlandy> important not set - any thoughts? 12:46:50 <dviroel> there are some places referencing a very old schema validation 12:47:02 <dviroel> doc updates I think that i usually low 12:47:32 <dviroel> a contributor docs in this case, not user doc 12:48:01 <dviroel> low should be fine 12:48:20 <rlandy> ok - pls go ahead and mark it 12:48:25 <dviroel> ack 12:48:44 <rlandy> ok - next ... 12:48:46 <rlandy> https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2111785 Zone migration strategy fails with StorageResourceNotFound while the volume exists 12:48:55 <rlandy> jgilaber: ^^ 12:49:12 <jgilaber> this one might not be a bug 12:49:36 <jgilaber> I saw the problem while testing the zone migration strategy and I thought there was some problem with the cinder collector 12:49:48 <jgilaber> but it turned out it was just disabled by default 12:50:12 <jgilaber> I put up a patch to enable it, but I'm not sure if that is the best approach 12:50:22 <jgilaber> just left it open for discussion 12:51:41 <jgilaber> not really sure if I should close it, left it open as medium/low or set it to wishlist 12:51:51 <dviroel> right, not really a bug imho, bug worth discussion if we should move the default to enabled or not 12:53:09 <rlandy> do you want to take the discussion here or async on the bug? 12:53:19 <jgilaber> we can do async I think 12:53:22 <dviroel> for CI testing you can still enable it with a config option, right? 12:53:42 <dviroel> for specific CI jobs, where you plan to run storage tests 12:53:51 <jgilaber> yes, we can 12:53:59 <dviroel> we can discuss the default enabled async I think 12:54:14 <dviroel> and this should not block jgilaber testing now 12:54:29 <rlandy> ok - good 12:54:35 <rlandy> moving on ... 12:54:42 <rlandy> #topic: open floor 12:54:48 <rlandy> anything else to raise? 12:56:03 <rlandy> alright ... moving on ... 12:56:17 <rlandy> #topic: Volunteers to chair next meeting 12:56:42 <dviroel> o/ 12:56:49 <rlandy> thank you dviroel 12:57:08 <rlandy> thank you for your participation 12:57:15 <rlandy> #endmeeting