08:00:11 <jose_lausuch> #startmeeting Functest weekly meeting 7 Nov. 2017
08:00:11 <collabot> Meeting started Tue Nov  7 08:00:11 2017 UTC.  The chair is jose_lausuch. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:00:11 <collabot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
08:00:11 <collabot> The meeting name has been set to 'functest_weekly_meeting_7_nov__2017'
08:00:19 <jose_lausuch> #info Agenda https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/functest/Functest+5.+Meeting#Functest5.Meeting-07/11(8UTC)
08:00:24 <jose_lausuch> #topic role call
08:00:28 <jose_lausuch> #info Jose Lausuch
08:00:38 <viktor_t> #info Viktor Tikkanen
08:00:43 <LindaWang> #info Linda Wang
08:00:50 <juhak> #info Juha Kosonen
08:01:36 <serena-zte> #info SerenaFeng
08:02:55 <ollivier> #info Cédric
08:03:03 <May-meimei> #info meimei
08:03:35 <jose_lausuch> May-meimei: welcome back!
08:03:55 <May-meimei> :)
08:04:03 <May-meimei> so long no see
08:04:12 <May-meimei> thanks
08:04:31 <jose_lausuch> are you back at work?
08:04:33 <jose_lausuch> in opnfv?
08:05:07 <May-meimei> yes,countinue my work in opnfv
08:05:26 <jose_lausuch> nice
08:05:32 <jose_lausuch> lot of things have happened  :)
08:05:51 <May-meimei> heard some news
08:05:54 <May-meimei> :P
08:06:30 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:06:32 <jose_lausuch> let´s get started
08:06:40 <jose_lausuch> #topic action points follow up
08:06:47 <jose_lausuch> #info AP: juhak LindaWang Try to fix rally 0.10 issues defined in https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/FUNCTEST-883
08:07:24 <LindaWang> # almost done, except the logging issue
08:07:35 <LindaWang> #info almost done, except the logging issue
08:07:48 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:07:57 <jose_lausuch> #info AP: juhak LindaWang add new scenarios from stable/0.10
08:08:01 <juhak> #info done
08:08:07 <juhak> #link https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/46461/
08:08:12 <juhak> #link https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/46533/
08:08:18 <juhak> #link https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/46563/
08:08:23 <juhak> #link https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/46677/
08:08:33 <LindaWang> #info thanks juhak
08:08:41 <jose_lausuch> #undo
08:08:41 <collabot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Info object at 0x2cd6510>
08:08:46 <jose_lausuch> no need to do that in info :)
08:08:49 <LindaWang> sorry
08:08:52 <jose_lausuch> thanks both for that work
08:09:12 <jose_lausuch> we don´t have specific topics
08:09:14 <jose_lausuch> for today
08:09:28 <jose_lausuch> so, any suggestions?
08:10:12 <ollivier> #info: Functest is updated to stable/pike.
08:10:24 <jose_lausuch> #topic Functest in Fraser
08:10:35 <jose_lausuch> irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/#info: Functest is updated to stable/pike.
08:10:38 <jose_lausuch> sorry
08:10:43 <jose_lausuch> irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/#info: Functest is updated to stable/pike.
08:10:48 <jose_lausuch> what´s happening?
08:10:56 <jose_lausuch> #info Functest is updated to stable/pike
08:11:31 <jose_lausuch> can you also info the ability to build a container from a patch?
08:11:38 <ollivier> yes
08:12:05 <ollivier> #info we can build Functest containers for any patchset (it allows future functional gating)
08:12:17 <jose_lausuch> #link https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/46725/
08:12:23 <jose_lausuch> #undo
08:12:23 <collabot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Link object at 0x2e30a90>
08:12:36 <jose_lausuch> #link https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/46721/
08:12:40 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:12:57 <ollivier> I will propose a Dockerfile for snaps and/or odl-sfc to start working of Funtional testing via Functest-core and XCI
08:13:39 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:13:58 <jose_lausuch> odl-sfc is maybe one of the projects that might implement gating with XCI soon
08:14:20 <ollivier> Functest is ready for Functional testing. we could run healthcheck and part of smoke to validate a change (rally or tempest or refstask)
08:14:46 <jose_lausuch> yes
08:15:07 <jose_lausuch> but we might have to wait a bit as fdegir suggested us
08:15:12 <ollivier> yes. I think snaps too. Snaps is a liitle bit more interesting because it's a Functest's dependency (and because it provides a python package)
08:15:15 <jose_lausuch> XCI will be soon in CI with Functest
08:15:28 <ollivier> I will ask Steven if agree this evening.
08:15:41 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:15:59 <ollivier> and snaps can break installers (see mail with David and Tim)
08:15:59 <jose_lausuch> what about Parser? do we merge it in functest-features now?
08:16:06 <ollivier> we can't
08:16:12 <jose_lausuch> I think it´s because Apex runs healtcheck
08:16:15 <ollivier> I already sent an email about that
08:16:18 <jose_lausuch> for gating
08:16:26 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:16:40 <ollivier> python namespace conflicts.
08:17:10 <ollivier> but everything is ready here to integrate Parser in Feature.
08:17:15 <jose_lausuch> #info can´t merge Parser container into functest-features due to python namespaces conflicts
08:17:21 <ollivier> the docker has been hugely simplified
08:17:28 <jose_lausuch> I´ve seen, yes
08:17:48 <ollivier> Do we move fds to features?
08:18:00 <jose_lausuch> LindaWang:
08:18:04 <ollivier> both proposals are fine.
08:18:12 <LindaWang> I  suggest to move it to features
08:18:20 <jose_lausuch> it's ok to move it
08:18:24 <depo_> #info depo
08:18:27 <jose_lausuch> let's decide now
08:18:43 <ollivier> ok. It's strenge from a neutron POV but meets OPNFV categories
08:18:48 <jose_lausuch> #info decission on moving FDS to features  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/46225/
08:19:05 <jose_lausuch> does anyone oppose?
08:19:42 <jose_lausuch> is FDS using robot framework?
08:20:05 <ollivier> yes
08:20:18 <jose_lausuch> but it´s installed in functest-core, so it should be fine
08:20:35 <ollivier> yes
08:20:58 <jose_lausuch> #startvote move FDS test case to Features container
08:20:58 <collabot> Unable to parse vote topic and options.
08:21:37 <ollivier> I think we shouldn't backport the patch. Otherwise it could break docs/wiki for E (se.g. screenshots).
08:21:50 <jose_lausuch> irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/#startvote move FDS test case to Features container?  (+1, 0, -1)
08:21:59 <jose_lausuch> #startvote move FDS test case to Features container?  (+1, 0, -1)
08:21:59 <collabot> Begin voting on: move FDS test case to Features container? Valid vote options are , +1, 0, -1, .
08:21:59 <collabot> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
08:22:04 <jose_lausuch> please cast your vote
08:22:11 <viktor_t> #vote +1
08:22:12 <LindaWang> #vote +1
08:22:13 <ollivier> gerrit is great too
08:22:14 <juhak> #vote +1
08:22:24 <serena-zte> #vote +1
08:22:31 <jose_lausuch> #vote +1
08:22:37 <ollivier> #vote 0
08:23:09 <ollivier> I already voted +2 on gerrit
08:23:10 <jose_lausuch> LindaWang: ?
08:23:14 <jose_lausuch> ollivier: yes :)
08:23:28 <jose_lausuch> #endvote
08:23:28 <collabot> Voted on "move FDS test case to Features container?" Results are
08:23:28 <collabot> 0 (1): ollivier
08:23:28 <collabot> +1 (5): viktor_t, juhak, jose_lausuch, LindaWang, serena-zte
08:23:40 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> Merged functest: Move fds to features tier  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/46225
08:23:42 <jose_lausuch> merged
08:23:44 <jose_lausuch> on master
08:23:47 <jose_lausuch> not euphrates
08:23:49 <LindaWang> jose_lausuch: thanks
08:23:57 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> Merged functest: Fix the format of getting upper-constraints  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/46771
08:24:34 <jose_lausuch> what else do we have in the pipe ?
08:24:43 <jose_lausuch> juhak: , what about https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/46757/ ?
08:25:50 <juhak> this is needed for stable/euphrates
08:26:03 <LindaWang> really?juhak
08:26:17 <LindaWang> i thought it  is needed by rally 0.10
08:26:42 <juhak> no, it's not related to rally 0.10
08:26:51 <LindaWang> juhak: ok.
08:27:15 <jose_lausuch> juhak: what was the problem ?
08:27:21 <ollivier> juhak: should it first fix in Euphrates as well or does it concern only the former releasE?
08:28:09 <juhak> jose_lausuch: some changes in Rally already earlier
08:28:52 <LindaWang> is there weekly job in Jenkins running rally_full now?
08:29:01 <jose_lausuch> I doubt it...
08:29:20 <juhak> ollivier: it concerns also former E release
08:29:48 <LindaWang> so it would be difficult to detect such errors except local testing.
08:30:08 <juhak> yes, that's the case
08:30:10 <ollivier> juhak: Sorry I mixed a little bit. Then we should first fix master and then cherry-pick it as you propose.
08:30:13 <jose_lausuch> no one is running tempest full either
08:31:35 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:31:44 <jose_lausuch> depo_: ping
08:31:52 <jose_lausuch> let's talk about docker builds
08:31:59 <jose_lausuch> #topic Docker builds
08:32:00 <depo_> Hi
08:32:01 <depo_> yes
08:32:16 <jose_lausuch> functest builds are triggered but they do nothing https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/functest-docker-build-push-amd64-master/6/console
08:32:48 <jose_lausuch> #info re-enabled Alpine docker builds in Dockerhub
08:32:51 <ollivier> #info we reset the triggers to build them via Docker Automated builds.
08:33:04 <ollivier> #undo
08:33:27 <jose_lausuch> however, ARM docker builds, build something https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/functest-docker-build-arm-push-master/
08:33:31 <jose_lausuch> with some failures
08:33:34 <depo_> ok. I will look into it to see any possible cause and try to fix
08:34:02 <depo_> yes, but not what we need. the build functest_aarch64
08:34:03 <ollivier> I think the dockerfile list is false.
08:34:35 <jose_lausuch> depo_: the problems I have seen with ARM docker builds are caused because of the build server
08:35:45 <ollivier> all containers are defined by one specific Dockerfile
08:35:51 <depo_> it's doing another build now, but it's creating opnfv/functest_aarch64:latest ....
08:36:54 <LindaWang> depo_
08:37:07 <LindaWang> The name of projects are wrong i guess
08:37:37 <LindaWang> the var arch_tag should be included in the projects names
08:38:37 <jose_lausuch> depo_: can I action you on that?
08:38:44 <depo_> no, the arch_tag should be a tag of the image
08:38:49 <depo_> yes
08:39:16 <jose_lausuch> #action depo_ look into the docker automated builds and propose a fix
08:39:52 <jose_lausuch> thanks
08:40:34 <jose_lausuch> ollivier:  question about xtesting
08:40:48 <jose_lausuch> since we it might take some time until getting a repo and so on
08:40:49 <depo_> thank you\
08:40:59 <jose_lausuch> all the approval process is long
08:41:12 <jose_lausuch> does it make sense to host the code in functest for now?
08:41:14 <jose_lausuch> and move it later on?
08:41:20 <jose_lausuch> so we can move forward with that?
08:41:29 <jose_lausuch> we could create a dir  xtesting in the root of the repo
08:42:32 <ollivier> no that's not suitable (python packages). If everybody agrees, I will ask for creating a second git repository. I will manage the global process in //.
08:42:45 <ollivier> We could start working on removing dependencies anyway.
08:43:15 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:43:29 <ollivier> The first step is to remove prepare_env
08:43:33 <jose_lausuch> ollivier: the first thing to do is to present the project proposal during the Weekly Technical call on thursdays
08:43:42 <jose_lausuch> ollivier: agree, we can do that already
08:44:27 <ollivier> jose_lausuch: I think I should write several wiki pages before. As David mentioned, it could be discussed during Hackfest/Plugfest.
08:45:06 <jose_lausuch> ollivier: only 1 wiki per proposal
08:45:08 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:45:17 <LindaWang> i think ollivier has presented the proposal in the weekly meeting before.
08:45:22 <ollivier> jose_lausuch: then we could prepare staff in Functest + a second repository. Then a clean project separation can be done in the middle of F or for G.
08:45:35 <jose_lausuch> LindaWang: not in the tech discuss weekly, only in the test working group
08:46:02 <jose_lausuch> well, the idea of xtesting is that it's not tight to the release
08:46:17 <jose_lausuch> so, it doesn't need to follow the release process and milestones if I am right
08:46:27 <ollivier> jose_lausuch: yes as requirements.
08:47:44 <jose_lausuch> but xtesting doesn't contain openstack requirements, right?
08:47:52 <ollivier> Does everybody agree on a new git repo? I can ask for that soon.
08:48:13 <ollivier> yes. Not linked to OPNFV and openstack.
08:48:35 <ollivier> It will ease integrating any K8 testcase as well
08:48:56 <jose_lausuch> #startvote agree on requesting a new repo for xtesting? (+1, 0, -1)
08:48:56 <collabot> Begin voting on: agree on requesting a new repo for xtesting? Valid vote options are , +1, 0, -1, .
08:48:56 <collabot> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
08:49:03 <ollivier> #vote +1
08:49:05 <LindaWang> #vote +1
08:49:07 <jose_lausuch> #vote +1
08:49:07 <juhak> #vote +1
08:49:11 <serena-zte> #vote +1
08:49:35 <jose_lausuch> ok, it seems we agree
08:49:38 <jose_lausuch> #endvote
08:49:38 <collabot> Voted on "agree on requesting a new repo for xtesting?" Results are
08:49:38 <collabot> +1 (5): juhak, ollivier, jose_lausuch, LindaWang, serena-zte
08:49:55 <ollivier> Be free to review xtesting proposal? I collected feedbacks from Jose, Morgan and Linda. May-meimei, viktor_t I can forward it to you as well
08:50:04 <viktor_t> ok
08:50:09 <jose_lausuch> #action ollivier jose_lausuch request a new repo to LF for xtesting
08:51:06 <ollivier> I will send the email this afternoon.
08:51:11 <jose_lausuch> ollivier: in the email, we should explain why we need that
08:51:20 <jose_lausuch> ollivier: I can help you doing that
08:51:37 <ollivier> ok I will send you the proposal before
08:51:56 <jose_lausuch> sounds good
08:52:37 <jose_lausuch> any other topics you want to discuss?
08:52:49 <jose_lausuch> what about requirements project?
08:52:58 <jose_lausuch> is that also for discusssion in the plugfest?
08:54:19 <ollivier> I am writing the script to automatically sync all projects. I think I will apply the same process. I will do my best to finish it before Plugfest/Hackfest.
08:54:32 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:54:53 <jose_lausuch> #info projects proposals will be discussed during the Plugfest/Hackfest
08:54:56 <ollivier> First I will ask for the repo. Then I will present the project and fulfill wikis.
08:54:59 <jose_lausuch> so you are going traveling then :)
08:55:04 <ollivier> technically speaking, It can't be refused :)
08:55:12 <jose_lausuch> I hope so
08:56:35 <serena-zte> will we have a minute talking about failure in api_check recently?
08:56:46 <jose_lausuch> #topic AoB
08:56:50 <jose_lausuch> serena-zte: what's wrong?
08:57:01 <serena-zte> api-check fails due to the new test case 'snaps.openstack.utils.tests.heat_utils_tests.HeatUtilsVolumeTests'
08:57:09 <LindaWang> https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/SNAPS-210
08:57:09 <jose_lausuch> #info api-check fails due to the new test case 'snaps.openstack.utils.tests.heat_utils_tests.HeatUtilsVolumeTests'
08:57:11 <LindaWang> serena-zte:
08:57:21 <jose_lausuch> #link https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/SNAPS-210
08:57:29 <serena-zte> encrpt volume type is introduced in this case
08:57:44 <LindaWang> I am writing to steven about moving this test case out of healtchheck
08:57:46 <serena-zte> but it is not supported by daisy, as well as compass now
08:57:56 <LindaWang> serena-zte:
08:58:01 <LindaWang> serena-zte: yes
08:58:01 <jose_lausuch> ok, then it makes sense to be moved to smoke maybe
08:58:18 <jose_lausuch> Heat shouldn't be part of healthcheck, as it's not a primary openstack service
08:58:42 <serena-zte> my concern is that, should we restrict which test case should be added/deleted from healthcheck/api-check/snaps-health-check?
08:58:52 <ollivier> As proposed, I think we should first test Functional gating on snaps because it can break Functest and then installers.
08:58:52 <serena-zte> in case this kind of things happen again
08:59:17 <ollivier> In fact, we have lost controls of hzealthcheck
08:59:21 <serena-zte> those three are fundamental tests
08:59:37 <ollivier> #agree
08:59:47 <jose_lausuch> serena-zte: yes, we should restrict what comes there
08:59:48 <LindaWang> the issue comes from the fact that no enough committers are  in SNAPS
08:59:50 <serena-zte> I suggest any change should be discussed within functest team or test working group
09:00:12 <jose_lausuch> LindaWang: will you write to Steven?
09:00:18 <LindaWang> jose_lausuch: yes
09:00:21 <jose_lausuch> ok
09:00:24 <serena-zte> and some people from installer team as well
09:00:31 <ollivier> Let me take that actions. I will help XCI and snaps to run healthcheck for every snaps change
09:00:38 <serena-zte> because we don't know which feature is supported by installers
09:01:01 <ollivier> Heat should be defined at OPNFV level.
09:01:13 <jose_lausuch> well, I would say that basic services in openstack should be in healtcheck (nova, neutron, keystone..)
09:01:23 <jose_lausuch> but heat is not a basic one
09:01:26 <jose_lausuch> it's optional
09:01:27 <LindaWang> serena-zte:  agree, the encryption of volume type is a feature, not a basic function.
09:01:34 <ollivier> by OPNFV?
09:01:51 <jose_lausuch> no in opnfv, I mean from an openstack deployment
09:02:11 <jose_lausuch> you can do things without heat, heat is the "orchestrator" level
09:02:20 <serena-zte> agree
09:02:20 <jose_lausuch> so, not for healthcheck I'd say
09:02:32 <serena-zte> openstack works with or without heat
09:02:45 <ollivier> I consider Heat as much important than cinder for my personal puprose ;)
09:03:12 <jose_lausuch> you can live without heat or cinder, but not without nova and neutron :)
09:03:21 <jose_lausuch> if installers don't support heat yet
09:03:29 <juhak> is SNAPS-210 heat or cinder problem?
09:03:33 <jose_lausuch> it makes sense to remove it from healthceck, no?
09:03:35 <LindaWang> cinder
09:03:45 <jose_lausuch> but I'm not sure what we are talking about, heat or cinder
09:03:46 <jose_lausuch> hehe
09:03:48 <serena-zte> i think heat is supported but encription volume type no
09:04:09 <jose_lausuch> ok
09:04:29 <jose_lausuch> LindaWang: CC us in that email, please
09:04:30 <jose_lausuch> thanks
09:04:36 <LindaWang> jose_lausuch: sure
09:04:38 <jose_lausuch> we are out of time
09:04:43 <jose_lausuch> #endmeeting