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