08:00:12 <morgan_orange> #startmeeting Functest weekly meeting April the 19th
08:00:12 <collabot> Meeting started Tue Apr 19 08:00:12 2016 UTC.  The chair is morgan_orange. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:00:12 <collabot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
08:00:12 <collabot> The meeting name has been set to 'functest_weekly_meeting_april_the_19th'
08:00:26 <morgan_orange> #topic call roll
08:00:32 <morgan_orange> #info Morgan Richomme
08:00:35 <viktor_nokia> #info Viktor Tikkanen
08:00:41 <jose_lausuch> #info Jose Lausuch
08:00:43 <juhak> #info Juha Kosonen
08:00:49 <David_Orange> #info David Blaisonneau
08:00:51 <CG_Nokia> #info CG_Nokia (Colum Gaynor)
08:00:52 <morgan_orange> jose_lausuch: only people who do nothing do not break things...
08:00:53 <JuhaHaapa> #info Juha Haapavirta
08:00:55 <serena-zte> #info
08:01:13 <lhinds> #info lhinds
08:01:14 <morgan_orange> #info agenda is here https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/functest/Functest+Meeting
08:01:21 <serena-zte> #info serena
08:01:26 <morgan_orange> any topic you want to add?
08:01:30 <jose_lausuch> I missed a quote
08:01:30 <jose_lausuch> haha
08:01:30 <raghavendrachari> #info raghavendrachari
08:01:36 <lhinds> do we have GTM?
08:01:44 <morgan_orange> not planned for today
08:01:44 <jose_lausuch> lhinds: nope
08:02:02 <morgan_orange> #topic action point follow-up
08:02:17 <jose_lausuch> I think there were no AP last week
08:02:23 <morgan_orange> #link http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-testperf/2016/opnfv-testperf.2016-04-12-08.00.html
08:02:30 <morgan_orange> #info no AP last week
08:02:39 <morgan_orange> #topic test release criteria
08:02:45 <lhinds> I prepared some slides, can share in here
08:02:46 <jose_lausuch> besides the current task everyone are working on :)
08:02:55 <jlinkes_> I there a audio/video meeting? The one on https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/functest/Functest+Meeting doesn't work for me
08:03:10 <morgan_orange> jlinkes_: only IRC this week
08:03:19 <jlinkes_> ok
08:03:50 <morgan_orange> lhinds: you can put your slide on the wiki?
08:03:52 <jose_lausuch> if we need, maybe we can arrange a GTM (audio/video) for next week
08:04:05 <morgan_orange> regarding test release criteria
08:04:38 <lhinds> morgan_orange, ok, its on google docs
08:04:47 <jose_lausuch> #info page created for each project to provide input about the release criteria https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Test+Release+Criteria
08:05:01 <jose_lausuch> maybe I AP myself to send a reminder
08:05:03 <lhinds> jose_lausuch, I think that would be better for me, as you will likely all have questions
08:05:43 <jose_lausuch> #action jose_lausuch send reminder to project test PTLs to fill the tables for release criteria
08:06:04 <jose_lausuch> morgan_orange: we need to take this again during next test group meeting on thursday
08:06:17 <morgan_orange> hope we will get some feedback, and not only the week before the freeze :)
08:06:25 <jose_lausuch> the idea is that the test subgroup has to come with a decision
08:06:28 <jose_lausuch> about what test to pass
08:06:35 <jose_lausuch> maybe we can talk now about what we want from functest
08:06:52 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange prepare presentation for test meeting on test criteria
08:07:05 <jose_lausuch> presentation?
08:07:26 <morgan_orange> shall we not explain what we did and hope other test project will do the same...
08:07:39 <jose_lausuch> yes, but that's appart
08:07:52 <morgan_orange> ok
08:07:54 <jose_lausuch> we had the idea to present our tools/framework for the community
08:07:58 <jose_lausuch> specially for the feature projects
08:08:14 <morgan_orange> yes it is a good idea
08:08:15 <jose_lausuch> but weeks are passing and no one speaks up :)
08:08:21 <jose_lausuch> we proposed it 2 weeks ago
08:08:32 <morgan_orange> let's do it this week...
08:08:38 <jose_lausuch> bryan tried to come up with a page to collect input
08:08:50 <jose_lausuch> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Feature+Test+Input
08:09:00 <morgan_orange> the Functest table is pretty clear and reflect our roadmap
08:09:02 <jose_lausuch> and those links have been sent to the community
08:09:08 <jose_lausuch> but no one has put anything yet
08:09:17 <morgan_orange> looks like in brahmaputra
08:09:46 <morgan_orange> we did not get feedback, or a very late...
08:10:04 <morgan_orange> ok let's focus on Functest
08:10:15 <lhinds> sorry, connection drop
08:10:31 <morgan_orange> as far as iI can see most of the criteria for the internal features are already defined
08:10:50 <jose_lausuch> do we miss any test case?
08:10:53 <morgan_orange> still questions on new test cases but could bee answered once implementation would be clearer
08:11:08 <jose_lausuch> for rally-full and vIMS I got some feedback
08:11:13 <jose_lausuch> about being part of the daily runs
08:11:14 <morgan_orange> regarding the discussions in Espoo, we will not get new open source VNFs from 01.org
08:11:30 <jose_lausuch> I Said that we would reduce the frequency, and they wouldnt be run every day
08:11:30 <morgan_orange> release planned at the end of the year
08:11:38 <morgan_orange> of course there are other Open source VNFs
08:11:43 <jose_lausuch> but then I got comments about being part of the criteria or not... if it makes sense..
08:11:49 <morgan_orange> but they will not come from Intel project for the C release
08:12:14 <jose_lausuch> morgan_orange: I say the email, we can't include those VNFs for Colorado I think :)
08:12:19 <jose_lausuch> maybe for D-river
08:12:53 <morgan_orange> jose_lausuch: regarding the question, for me it makes sense to be part of the release even if we do not run systematically on each run
08:13:04 <jose_lausuch> morgan_orange: yes but
08:13:18 <jose_lausuch> release != release criteria
08:13:27 <jose_lausuch> everything can be part of the release
08:13:32 <jose_lausuch> but I'm talking about the criteria
08:13:33 <jose_lausuch> for example
08:13:53 <jose_lausuch> the decision about some performance test projects is still pending
08:13:57 <jose_lausuch> about being part of the release crteira
08:14:04 <jose_lausuch> of course they'll be part of the release
08:14:18 <jose_lausuch> but we need to come up with something to evaluate the deployment
08:14:43 <morgan_orange> for performance I can understand the dilemna but for us most of the tests are it works or it does not work...we do not  evaluate performance
08:14:48 <jose_lausuch> that's why I put at the beggining "IMPORTANT: Not being part of the release criteria does not mean not being part of the release. Those test cases that won't be part of the criteria, can be still run on non CI PODs and released in Colorado."
08:14:58 <jose_lausuch> that's right
08:15:29 <jose_lausuch> the problem is that our functest job takes 3 hours :)
08:15:41 <jose_lausuch> and we will include more features
08:15:55 <morgan_orange> but with our new mechanisms (tier + trust indicator) we should reduce that
08:16:12 <jose_lausuch> it should and I think it will
08:16:33 <morgan_orange> juhak: showed yesterday that a basic Rally may last 28 minutes...
08:17:00 <morgan_orange> of course the scope is reduced and we will still trigger Rally tests that last longer but with teh mechanism we should be able to save time...
08:17:09 <jose_lausuch> I think that's too long for a smoke, and as he pointed out, removing some scenarios, we can achieve 10 min for rally-smoke, which is perfect
08:17:23 <morgan_orange> so for the moment, I would not consider that, just think to the test criteria as defined
08:17:46 <morgan_orange> if it takes too long (we should be reasonable)...then we will reduce our scope / frequency of some tests  / ...
08:17:47 <viktor_nokia> (health / smoke / openstack ready / VNFs / features )
08:17:47 <viktor_nokia> Is it so that the goal is to have 5 tiers?
08:17:54 <morgan_orange> I can assume that the security scan will also take time
08:18:03 <jose_lausuch> viktor_nokia: yes
08:18:20 <morgan_orange> #info discussion on test criteria https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Test+Release+Criteria
08:18:31 <lhinds> takes about 30 seconds per node
08:18:39 <jose_lausuch> viktor_nokia: I started with this config file https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/12165/
08:18:42 <morgan_orange> #info  release != release criteria
08:18:51 <lhinds> but that was against a virtual machine with just 1026 of ram, 1 virt cpu
08:18:59 <morgan_orange> #info everything can be in the release
08:18:59 <lhinds> _1028
08:19:13 <jose_lausuch> lhinds: ok, that's not much
08:19:29 <morgan_orange> #info test criteria are indicated to give an indicator if the test can be considered as successful or not
08:19:53 <morgan_orange> #info we know that timing is challenging and currently 3h is too long
08:20:29 <morgan_orange> #info that is why 2 mechanisms are planned for Colorado to reduce the duration of the run and not run tests systematically (if results are stable)
08:20:46 <jose_lausuch> #info test criteria = group of tests that need to succeed to validate the release
08:21:05 <morgan_orange> #info first mechanism: slicing tests into 5 tiers: health / smoke / openstack ready / VNFs / features
08:21:32 <morgan_orange> #info second mechanism: use a trust indicator for each test case to trigger or not the test case
08:22:01 <morgan_orange> #info not possible to get the real impacts on these mechanism yet...but it would be one of the main contribution for C release...
08:22:04 <jose_lausuch> #info trust indicator to be used on the long test cases
08:22:10 <morgan_orange> yes
08:22:30 <morgan_orange> #info first tiers are short and will be run systematically
08:22:44 <morgan_orange> shall we keep policytest in the list?
08:22:57 <morgan_orange> my view is that the project is no more active
08:23:21 <jose_lausuch> maybe we have to remove it
08:23:25 <jose_lausuch> and we got new requests
08:23:30 <jose_lausuch> from movie, models, ...
08:23:35 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange contact policytest to see if they are still alive
08:24:08 <morgan_orange> that is a good news...they contact us early...
08:24:20 <morgan_orange> but I assume it is just to indicate that they want to perform tests...
08:24:32 <jose_lausuch> yes, but there is no much information anywhere
08:24:35 <jose_lausuch> just the intention :)
08:24:45 <jose_lausuch> so we don't know how much work will be for them/us ?
08:24:49 <jose_lausuch> to support , specially
08:24:55 <morgan_orange> yes that is why we need to explain what we did with doctor/promise/bgpvpn...
08:25:39 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange review new demands from feature projects and try to precise a way to work
08:26:00 <morgan_orange> there are still "to be decided" in the table
08:26:01 <jose_lausuch> I already sent an email to the community asking for that
08:26:03 <jose_lausuch> good luck :)
08:26:12 <jose_lausuch> maybe its better to address directly to the PTLs..
08:26:14 <morgan_orange> shall we decide?
08:26:25 <jose_lausuch> mailing list mails are often forgotten
08:26:50 <morgan_orange> there is a new release manager and a release meeting...let's try all the different options :)
08:27:01 <jose_lausuch> we can decide, but I'd like to bring it also to the test group, to see their view as well
08:27:05 <morgan_orange> shall we add a line rally_smoke rally_full
08:27:12 <morgan_orange> like for tempest
08:27:16 <jose_lausuch> yes, I forgot that!
08:27:17 <jose_lausuch> :)
08:27:28 <jose_lausuch> and for tempest smoke, I put 90%, but I;d say 100% !
08:28:20 <morgan_orange> 100% should be the target...especially for smoke, we almost have 95% on the customized list
08:29:30 <morgan_orange> for the moment I would suggest to include all the test cases, we will adapt if our 2 mechanisms do not save enough time
08:29:37 <viktor_nokia> 100% can be reached but requires some work from installers
08:29:55 <jose_lausuch> I'd like to see 100% too :)
08:30:34 <jose_lausuch> for tempest-full maybe its fine with 80%, but a smoke should provide good results
08:30:43 <jose_lausuch> if you like 95%, but ideally it should be 100
08:31:24 <morgan_orange> let's announce 100% (that is our view to ensure sustainability and homogeneous results)  - we will see if e need to move it back to 95% to be pragmatic..
08:31:33 <morgan_orange> anyway the release will be pronounced.. :)
08:31:42 <jose_lausuch> +1
08:32:02 <morgan_orange> #action viktor_nokia set tempest smoke to 100%
08:32:20 <morgan_orange> #action juhak add line Rally_smoke / rally full
08:32:30 <morgan_orange> idem for rally, rally smoke should be 100%
08:32:38 <morgan_orange> and 90% for the full
08:32:42 <morgan_orange> makes sense for me
08:32:46 <jose_lausuch> oops sorry
08:32:47 <jose_lausuch> too late
08:32:52 <morgan_orange> np
08:32:53 <jose_lausuch> I added it :)
08:32:59 <boris-42> hi there
08:32:59 <boris-42> =)
08:33:05 <morgan_orange> hi boris-42
08:33:11 <jose_lausuch> boris-42: :)
08:33:23 <morgan_orange> any question on test criteria for release C?
08:33:38 <boris-42> why not 100% success rate?)
08:34:05 <morgan_orange> it should be...
08:34:09 <jose_lausuch> boris-42: we will have a rally smoke suite and it will be 100%
08:34:19 <jose_lausuch> but for the full... problems can happen with the deployment
08:34:23 <jose_lausuch> we want to be a bit flexible
08:34:28 <jose_lausuch> (for now)
08:34:36 <jose_lausuch> maybe future releases we force it to 100%
08:35:16 <morgan_orange> #topic Security testing
08:35:38 <morgan_orange> lhinds: can you give us a status and share the link of the doc you want to share
08:36:07 <lhinds> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/functest/Functest+Security
08:36:09 <morgan_orange> #info code for OpenScap scan merged yesterday https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/12411/
08:36:16 <lhinds> slide deck embedded ^^
08:37:41 <lhinds> Status: I have the full remote scanning working in my lab, the next AP's are to integrate with functests main script, and work on how to hop across nodes either in my own manner or with flash test.
08:38:13 <morgan_orange> sounds good
08:38:27 <jose_lausuch> so you connect to the controllers/compute nodes
08:38:28 <lhinds> This is where I need to ask for advice on setting up a test environment to do the second AP, in that can I replicate this locally or would I need a lab
08:38:36 <lhinds> jose_lausuch, yes
08:38:52 <jose_lausuch> and you check the keystone.cfg and sshd config
08:38:55 <lhinds> as a side note, we can scan anything we want. but plan to start with the OS nodes
08:39:01 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:39:07 <lhinds> jose_lausuch, that is just two of hundreds
08:39:09 <jose_lausuch> sounds good to start
08:39:12 <jose_lausuch> we can include more things :)
08:39:18 <jose_lausuch> sure
08:39:21 <lhinds> yes, those are just examples
08:39:43 <jose_lausuch> when you say "install pkg deb" or centos
08:39:47 <morgan_orange> do you have access to OPNFV labs?
08:39:48 <jose_lausuch> is that to be installed in the container?
08:39:48 <lhinds> it also checks for CVEs, up to date patches, pending reboots..a lot of stuff
08:39:51 <jose_lausuch> or on the nodes?
08:40:17 <lhinds> jose_lausuch, plan to support RPM and DEB, but starting with RPM
08:40:28 <lhinds> morgan_orange, not yet
08:40:45 <lhinds> jose_lausuch, no. Nothing in container
08:41:05 <lhinds> the script remotely installs the RPM (scanner), performs the scan on the remote node
08:41:10 <jose_lausuch> lhinds: how are we gonna handle installting stuff on the SUT ?
08:41:13 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:41:14 <lhinds> downloads the report to the container
08:41:21 <lhinds> and then scrubs clean (if we want)
08:41:38 <lhinds> only need the requirements, which we discussed on gerrit
08:41:38 <jose_lausuch> so we need root access to the nodes
08:41:53 <lhinds> jose_lausuch, yes or a sudo user with WHEEL ALL
08:42:00 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:42:14 <jose_lausuch> nice
08:42:53 <lhinds> I think connnection topic, just needs work, we will work something out I am sure.
08:43:27 <morgan_orange> regarding the lab: the intel lab dedicated to apex, is maybe the best place to start?
08:43:42 <lhinds> also if we want to add checks, we can upstream to the SCAP repos
08:44:02 <lhinds> morgan_orange, sounds good. would that be Tim Rozet and co?
08:44:07 <jose_lausuch> it would be great to have a list of what we can include, and then we pick some things
08:44:26 <lhinds> jose_lausuch, that may be possible
08:44:33 <lhinds> the report is a nicely formatted html
08:44:40 <lhinds> but there is a also an xml version
08:44:56 <morgan_orange> lhinds: yes trozet and dan are the good contacts
08:44:57 <lhinds> we can then parse those delimiters into the dashboard
08:44:59 <jose_lausuch> lhinds: that html can be pushed to artifacts
08:45:08 <morgan_orange> +1
08:45:10 <jose_lausuch> and then we need a simple text report for our output on jenkins
08:45:14 <lhinds> jose_lausuch, that would be an easy way to start
08:45:18 <jose_lausuch> and also a way to push it to the dashboard
08:45:24 <morgan_orange> on the dashboard, we just can push the scan duration and an overall status
08:45:25 <jose_lausuch> maybe duration and % of test passed/failed
08:45:34 <morgan_orange> the hml artifacts looks fine
08:45:54 <lhinds> yep, it has pie charts and other elements to show overall status
08:46:03 <lhinds> lots of eye candy :P
08:46:48 <morgan_orange> let's first fix the integration and the automation on one isntaller, then try to generalize it. Dashboarding will not be difficult :)
08:46:50 <lhinds> #action luke to contact intel labs / tim rozet for security test integration
08:47:01 <lhinds> morgan_orange, agree
08:47:31 <lhinds> that would be a good way forwards
08:47:41 <jose_lausuch> yes
08:47:48 <morgan_orange> with David_Orange we shall be able to test it locally on a joid solution
08:48:05 <morgan_orange> jose_lausuch: could probably test it on fuel and May-meimei on compass
08:48:16 <jose_lausuch> morgan_orange: yes
08:48:40 <lhinds> morgan_orange, there are DEB packages for ubuntu, just the actual SCAP content might need some attention
08:48:51 <lhinds> but there is SCAP content out there
08:49:02 <morgan_orange> ok
08:49:15 <lhinds> or someone could show it some love and give it a review. I will try of course too
08:49:32 <morgan_orange> any other question on security suite?
08:49:45 <morgan_orange> 10 minutes left
08:49:53 <morgan_orange> #topic functest offline
08:50:12 <jose_lausuch> I added the topic because we started discussing with viktor_nokia about having it offline for colorado
08:50:18 <morgan_orange> an old story based on some frustration during the Düsseldorf event where there was no connection
08:50:24 <jose_lausuch> it is possible, we just need to do some adaptations in some scripts
08:50:37 <jose_lausuch> so its a request for all the "test owners" to try to pre install as much as possible
08:50:47 <jose_lausuch> for vIMS I sent an email to valentin, but he is not available
08:51:01 <morgan_orange> for vIMS, as far as i know the way everything is done, it does not sound very easy...but I have to discuss with Valentin
08:51:05 <jose_lausuch> for rally and tempest we already pre install the stuff
08:51:27 <morgan_orange> ok
08:51:37 <viktor_nokia> BTW, more generally, "offline" can be a goal for installers as well
08:51:46 <jose_lausuch> I pushed a patch yesterday about it as well
08:51:59 <jose_lausuch> viktor_nokia: some of them can deploy offline already
08:52:15 <jose_lausuch> but I dont know all the details
08:52:19 <morgan_orange> viktor_nokia: you think that it should be reported to genesis as a requirement ?
08:52:34 <viktor_nokia> it may make sense
08:52:47 <jose_lausuch> we can try :D
08:53:14 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange viktor_nokia contact Frank to see if offline could be considered as a requirement for C-release
08:53:16 <jose_lausuch> but I dont think it's that easy for some of them
08:53:21 <jose_lausuch> but let's see
08:53:25 <jose_lausuch> but for us, I think we can manage
08:53:49 <jose_lausuch> we need to identify what else needs internet
08:53:58 <morgan_orange> but then the first security scan will tell you that there are security issues in your "old" libraries
08:54:21 <jose_lausuch> ?
08:54:41 <jose_lausuch> didnt get that
08:55:13 <morgan_orange> I just imagined that if we preinstall everything, we will not be necessarily up to date on all the libraries
08:55:27 <morgan_orange> but np
08:55:30 <jose_lausuch> mmm, we build constantly the docker image
08:55:36 <jose_lausuch> like everyday
08:55:42 <jose_lausuch> that should be fine I think
08:56:07 <morgan_orange> ok
08:56:11 <morgan_orange> #topic AoB
08:56:26 <morgan_orange> #info yardstick planned to create a CLI, I think it is a good idea...
08:56:32 <morgan_orange> functest show testcases
08:56:37 <morgan_orange> functest show tools
08:56:44 <morgan_orange> functest run rally-smoke
08:56:50 <morgan_orange> functest getenv
08:56:51 <morgan_orange> ...
08:57:04 <jose_lausuch> that would be nice
08:57:07 <morgan_orange> we did not plan that but could be interesting
08:57:25 <jose_lausuch> functest run tier-1
08:57:26 <viktor_nokia> ./run_tests.sh --> functest
08:57:27 <jose_lausuch> :)
08:57:30 <jose_lausuch> yes
08:57:31 <raghavendrachari> idea is good one
08:57:41 <serena-zte> good idea, so we don't need to go to the exact path to run scripts
08:57:55 <jose_lausuch> do we all agree?
08:57:58 <jose_lausuch> I vote +1 :)
08:57:59 <raghavendrachari> yes
08:58:01 <juhak> +1
08:58:03 <raghavendrachari> +1
08:58:03 <morgan_orange> we should add the description of the testcases (for the moment stored in the DB but that shall be available offline)
08:58:04 <serena-zte> +1
08:58:20 <jose_lausuch> morgan_orange: I'm working on that as well, for the tiers
08:58:27 <jose_lausuch> we'll have 1 yaml file with all the tests
08:58:41 <jose_lausuch> I think that's a new epic!
08:58:44 <jose_lausuch> functest cli
08:58:46 <morgan_orange> ok we will "just" to be sync
08:58:49 <morgan_orange> yes
08:58:57 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange create functest cli epic
08:59:22 <morgan_orange> any volunteer to make a first study of what we need (wiki) then implement?
08:59:43 <morgan_orange> raghavendrachari: may I action you for that?
08:59:44 <jose_lausuch> btw, for everyone working on something, if you want to add new things in the repo related to an epic, its good to create "TASK" in JIRA yourselv and relate it to the existing EPICs we have
08:59:50 <raghavendrachari> yes
08:59:52 <jose_lausuch> so you are also mentioned in the JIRA reports
08:59:54 <raghavendrachari> do it
09:00:02 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange assign raghavendrachari for CLI
09:00:03 <jose_lausuch> dont create SUB-TASK, since they can't be related to EPICs
09:00:06 <jose_lausuch> but TASKs are
09:00:18 <morgan_orange> #info I also created versions in Jiras
09:00:28 <morgan_orange> when creating a Jira use Colorado / brahmaputra version
09:00:38 <morgan_orange> ok it is already time
09:00:38 <jose_lausuch> yes
09:00:46 <morgan_orange> 2 minutes left if you want to share something
09:01:01 <morgan_orange> any comment/remark/question
09:01:55 <raghavendrachari> please review the odl testsuite evolution asap
09:02:06 <serena-zte> as for the functtest-156, since there is no such things like flask-restful-swagger, I need to write one by myself, is that ok?
09:02:17 <morgan_orange> well no
09:02:21 <raghavendrachari> https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/FUNCTEST-177
09:02:42 <jose_lausuch> raghavendrachari: I think we can add all of them
09:02:47 <jose_lausuch> with priority to the L3 stuff
09:02:55 <jose_lausuch> openflow and neutron would be a nice one too
09:02:57 <raghavendrachari> ok ..
09:03:09 <serena-zte> morgan_orange no?
09:03:11 <morgan_orange> I saw something I put in the backlog serena-zte, let me try to find it again. If it does not exist, do not develop it specifically
09:03:55 <morgan_orange> serena-zte: oops not in backlogs..
09:04:19 <serena-zte> but swagger-ui cannot be used directly, it needs to be integrated with the web framework
09:05:55 <morgan_orange> serena-zte: let's continue offline
09:06:02 <serena-zte> ok
09:06:37 <morgan_orange> thanks you for attending, have a good week, see you next week
09:06:40 <morgan_orange> #endmeeting