14:30:18 <dalley> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2017-10-27 14:30:18 <dalley> #info dalley has joined triage 14:30:19 <pulpbot> Meeting started Fri Oct 27 14:30:18 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dalley. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:30:19 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:30:19 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2017_10_27' 14:30:19 <pulpbot> dalley: dalley has joined triage 14:30:33 <bizhang> !here 14:30:33 <bizhang> #info bizhang has joined triage 14:30:33 <pulpbot> bizhang: bizhang has joined triage 14:30:40 <asmacdo> !here 14:30:40 <asmacdo> #info asmacdo has joined triage 14:30:40 <pulpbot> asmacdo: asmacdo has joined triage 14:30:41 <mhrivnak> !here 14:30:41 <mhrivnak> #info mhrivnak has joined triage 14:30:42 <pulpbot> mhrivnak: mhrivnak has joined triage 14:30:43 <mansari> !here 14:30:43 <mansari> #info mansari has joined triage 14:30:43 <pulpbot> mansari: mansari has joined triage 14:30:57 <dalley> !next 14:30:58 <pulpbot> dalley: 5 issues left to triage: 3093, 3098, 3100, 3101, 3103 14:30:59 <dalley> #topic api schema includes the same params for all request types - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3093 14:30:59 <pulpbot> Issue #3093 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:31:00 <pulpbot> api schema includes the same params for all request types - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3093 14:31:04 <bmbouter> !here 14:31:04 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage 14:31:04 <pulpbot> bmbouter: bmbouter has joined triage 14:31:12 <asmacdo> !propose accept 14:31:12 <asmacdo> #idea Proposed for #3093: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:31:12 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Proposed for #3093: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:31:16 <dalley> I believe we skipped this one last time pending more discussion 14:31:21 <bizhang> I think this is an issue with drf 3.7.0 14:31:41 <asmacdo> I don't know how we should handle it, but I think it is more of a documentation problem than a code problem 14:31:44 <mhrivnak> Did we resolve whatever it was we decided to wait on? (I don't recall what that was.) 14:31:56 <asmacdo> I looked into it 14:31:57 <bmbouter> yeah I think we got new comments 14:32:33 <fdobrovo> !here 14:32:33 <fdobrovo> #info fdobrovo has joined triage 14:32:33 <pulpbot> fdobrovo: fdobrovo has joined triage 14:33:04 <mhrivnak> This brings up an interesting side-note: maybe we should comment on an issue when we skip it, listing exactly why it was skipped and what needs to happen for it to be triagable. 14:33:12 <mhrivnak> But we can discuss that post-triage. :) 14:33:14 <asmacdo> Yeah, probably a good practice 14:33:19 <dalley> anyone object to accepting? 14:33:23 <bizhang> we should open this as an issue with upstream drf, since it's working as expected in 3.6.4 14:33:33 <mhrivnak> +1 accept 14:33:38 <asmacdo> bizhang: that is surprising to me 14:33:55 <bmbouter> +1 14:33:59 <bmbouter> should this go on the sprint? 14:34:10 <bizhang> asmacdo, If I revert to 3.6.4 the only params on DELETE is the name 14:34:14 <bizhang> I can comment on issue 14:34:39 <asmacdo> bizhang: oh wow, ok. I think i got it wrong then. Lets accept it, and put it on the sprint. 14:35:12 <dalley> !propose other accept and add to sprint 14:35:12 <dalley> #idea Proposed for #3093: accept and add to sprint 14:35:12 <pulpbot> dalley: Proposed for #3093: accept and add to sprint 14:35:35 <mhrivnak> +1 14:36:16 <dalley> !accept 14:36:16 <dalley> #agreed accept and add to sprint 14:36:16 <pulpbot> dalley: Current proposal accepted: accept and add to sprint 14:36:17 <pulpbot> dalley: 4 issues left to triage: 3098, 3100, 3101, 3103 14:36:18 <dalley> #topic Docker publish may fail with "OSError: [Errno 17] File exists" if two publishes triggered at same time - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3098 14:36:18 <pulpbot> Issue #3098 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:36:19 <pulpbot> Docker publish may fail with "OSError: [Errno 17] File exists" if two publishes triggered at same time - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3098 14:38:05 <mhrivnak> interesting. 14:38:16 <asmacdo> :*( 14:38:20 <mhrivnak> Behavior shows in pulp_docker, but looks like the problem is in platform. 14:38:53 <mhrivnak> In any case, I suspect this will be relatively easy to solve. 14:39:11 <asmacdo> yeah, if it exists, problem solved, keep going 14:39:30 <asmacdo> jortel: is this the problem you were working on in pulp3? 14:39:46 * jortel looks 14:40:08 <asmacdo> we might be able to steal some of pulp3 code :) 14:40:17 <mhrivnak> !propose triage high medium 14:40:17 <mhrivnak> #idea Proposed for #3098: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:40:17 <pulpbot> mhrivnak: Proposed for #3098: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:41:23 <asmacdo> sounds reasonable to me 14:41:56 <jortel> asmacdo: hard to say. which pulp3 problem do you mean? 14:42:27 <asmacdo> the general filesystem race condition 14:42:40 <mhrivnak> I suggest continuing that discussion later unless it's relevant to triaging? 14:43:16 <asmacdo> i'm fine with that, mostly wanted jortel to have a glance before we triage 14:43:17 <jortel> agreed 14:43:45 <dalley> !accept 14:43:45 <dalley> #agreed Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:43:45 <pulpbot> dalley: Current proposal accepted: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:43:47 <pulpbot> dalley: 3 issues left to triage: 3100, 3101, 3103 14:43:47 <dalley> #topic Removal of existing iso units doesn't work if there are multiple iso files - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3100 14:43:48 <pulpbot> Issue #3100 [POST] (daviddavis@redhat.com) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:43:49 <pulpbot> Removal of existing iso units doesn't work if there are multiple iso files - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3100 14:44:22 <asmacdo> POST 14:44:26 <asmacdo> #idea Proposed for #3100: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:44:26 <asmacdo> !propose accept 14:44:26 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Proposed for #3100: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:44:32 <mhrivnak> !propose other accept and add to sprint 14:44:32 <mhrivnak> #idea Proposed for #3100: accept and add to sprint 14:44:32 <pulpbot> mhrivnak: Proposed for #3100: accept and add to sprint 14:44:45 <asmacdo> daviddavis++ 14:44:45 <pulpbot> asmacdo: daviddavis's karma is now 17 14:44:48 <dalley> !accept 14:44:48 <dalley> #agreed accept and add to sprint 14:44:48 <pulpbot> dalley: Current proposal accepted: accept and add to sprint 14:44:49 <pulpbot> dalley: 2 issues left to triage: 3101, 3103 14:44:50 <dalley> #topic Changing a repository's name changes its URI - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3101 14:44:50 <pulpbot> Issue #3101 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:44:51 <pulpbot> Changing a repository's name changes its URI - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3101 14:45:38 <asmacdo> i'm tempted to add this one to the sprint too 14:46:06 <bmbouter> +1 14:46:27 <asmacdo> I think we ought to groom it though 14:46:31 <mhrivnak> Should we expand the scope of this to all natural keys? 14:46:34 <jortel> +1 14:46:39 <asmacdo> I dont think we do mhrivnak 14:46:56 <mhrivnak> All natural keys when used to form URL paths? :) 14:46:56 <dalley> !propose other accept, groom, add to sprint 14:46:56 <dalley> #idea Proposed for #3101: accept, groom, add to sprint 14:46:56 <pulpbot> dalley: Proposed for #3101: accept, groom, add to sprint 14:47:01 <asmacdo> some resources need to change their name 14:47:06 <asmacdo> wait dalley 14:47:07 <bmbouter> yes we should 14:47:19 <bmbouter> if we want more discussion we could skip 14:47:37 <bmbouter> or continue discussion now b/c I do want it on the sprint soon 14:48:03 <mhrivnak> asmacdo if a name needs to change, then perhaps the name is not the natural key? 14:48:20 <asmacdo> I guess we could just do this for all natural keys, and fix it later if there is an exception 14:48:28 <asmacdo> +1 accept 14:48:32 <bmbouter> we should have no natural keys in urls 14:48:34 <bmbouter> +1 14:48:52 <bizhang> +1 14:49:08 <mhrivnak> +1 accept, and let's discuss natural keys in URLs separately. 14:49:30 <asmacdo> sorry to hold up 14:49:30 <dalley> just accept, or accept & add to sprint? 14:49:36 <asmacdo> but that is different than i was thinking 14:49:41 <asmacdo> i just noticed that last comment 14:49:55 <asmacdo> i was thinking that the natural keys would be used in urls 14:49:59 <asmacdo> but be immutable 14:50:36 <mhrivnak> That is the current intent. There's a suggestion to change that, but it needs discussion. 14:50:40 <bmbouter> agreed 14:51:15 <asmacdo> ok, then i'm ok to move on 14:51:35 <dalley> !accept 14:51:35 <dalley> #agreed accept, groom, add to sprint 14:51:35 <pulpbot> dalley: Current proposal accepted: accept, groom, add to sprint 14:51:36 <pulpbot> dalley: 1 issues left to triage: 3103 14:51:36 <dalley> #topic Missing representation of spawned_tasks in response - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3103 14:51:37 <pulpbot> Issue #3103 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:51:38 <pulpbot> Missing representation of spawned_tasks in response - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3103 14:52:14 <bmbouter> kersom discovered this while implementing the "follow a task and all of its children" code in pulp smash 14:52:29 <bmbouter> I think the viewset is just not including that field for some reason 14:52:59 <mhrivnak> I'm +1 on accepting this, but I'm not sure it's worth adding to the current sprint. 14:53:00 <asmacdo> s/viewset/serializer/ 14:53:22 <kersom> based on what we talked yesterday, the same concept is applied for workers as well. but I did not find a good example to file an issue. it is on my todo list. 14:54:04 <bmbouter> for them to port that code I think they need this field which is the sprint motivation 14:54:17 <bmbouter> kersom another option is to make the following of child tasks a separate issue 14:54:19 <asmacdo> if this is blocking QE +1 add t osprint 14:54:31 <mhrivnak> Ah. If it's blocking QE I'm good for adding it to the sprint. 14:54:31 <bmbouter> in practice there should be few of those since pulp3 doesn't even have auto publish 14:54:44 <bmbouter> it is blocking QE if they continue to port the way they planned to 14:54:56 <bmbouter> kersom are you +1 to add this to the sprint or? 14:54:58 <dalley> !propose other accept and add to sprint 14:54:58 <dalley> #idea Proposed for #3103: accept and add to sprint 14:54:58 <pulpbot> dalley: Proposed for #3103: accept and add to sprint 14:55:10 <bmbouter> I'm +1 on adding it to the sprint (I think) 14:55:20 <kersom> it could very helpful for QE 14:55:22 <kersom> +1 14:55:30 <kersom> be* 14:56:48 <kersom> then we do not need to create a code that will be changed in a near future, and it will be very close to what we have in place for pulp2, and it has been used for a while. 14:58:09 <dalley> any objections? 14:58:10 <bmbouter> +1 14:58:22 <asmacdo> +1 14:58:25 <dalley> !accept 14:58:25 <dalley> #agreed accept and add to sprint 14:58:25 <pulpbot> dalley: Current proposal accepted: accept and add to sprint 14:58:27 <pulpbot> dalley: No issues to triage. 14:58:35 <bmbouter> \o/ 14:59:16 <dalley> asmacdo, you mentioned that you thought 3101 should be groomed before putting it on the sprint 14:59:27 <dalley> should we let the person who grooms it add to the sprint? 15:00:05 <asmacdo> i was still talking about 3100 15:00:34 <asmacdo> oh. no sorry 15:00:52 <asmacdo> no, we don't need to groom. I think we should make all natural keys immutable, at least for now. 15:00:53 <dalley> 3100 was the one already in POST 15:01:03 <dalley> ack 15:01:19 <dalley> !end 15:01:19 <dalley> #endmeeting