Difference between revisions of "Meetings/KeystoneMeeting"
< Meetings
(→Weekly Keystone team meeting) |
(→Agenda for next meeting) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* [Brant] Tempest change for [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56106/ assignments-doesn't-check-identity] | * [Brant] Tempest change for [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56106/ assignments-doesn't-check-identity] | ||
| − | ** Allows both 200 and 404... could change to 200-only after keystone change merges. | + | ** Do we need a new blueprint? the ones we have aren't going to be obvious to tempest - split-identity is closed and federation doesn't say this. |
| − | ** Not surprised at -1 since didn't provide any justification (more proof of concept until have blueprint) | + | ** From last time: |
| − | ** [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/54647/ keystone change] | + | *** Allows both 200 and 404... could change to 200-only after keystone change merges. |
| + | *** Not surprised at -1 since didn't provide any justification (more proof of concept until have blueprint) | ||
| + | *** [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/54647/ keystone change] | ||
* [Brant] REMOTE_USER auth v2 and v3 mismatch | * [Brant] REMOTE_USER auth v2 and v3 mismatch | ||
| − | ** | + | ** I think we should have a doc/etherpad says what plugins we want! |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* Code reviews for [https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/icehouse-1 icehouse blueprints] | * Code reviews for [https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/icehouse-1 icehouse blueprints] | ||
** [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/38414 API Version Discovery] | ** [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/38414 API Version Discovery] | ||
| Line 22: | Line 18: | ||
** [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59546 Revocation Events] | ** [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59546 Revocation Events] | ||
** [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59600 for KDS] | ** [https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59600 for KDS] | ||
| − | + | * [Brant] Moving keystone tests to tempest | |
| + | ** Tempest doesn't want our tests as they are. They have scenario tests, but they're not like our keystoneclient tests. | ||
| + | ** Had a few proposals on the [http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/021629.html ML] | ||
| + | *** Don't put the tests in Tempest. Have new jobs, could get the code from keystone, new project, or whatever. (This would get the testing out of K6e quickly.) | ||
| + | *** Clean up tests in keystone so that they're like tempest would accept as scenario tests, then move to tempest. | ||
| + | *** Drop this testing - nobody else is doing this so why do we? | ||
| + | **** Stop checkout in keystone, just test master; then can change keystone to use webtest rather than the client (like v3 tests). | ||
* Open Topic | * Open Topic | ||
** [https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/service-scoped-role-definition service or resource scoped role definition] | ** [https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/service-scoped-role-definition service or resource scoped role definition] | ||
Revision as of 19:10, 9 December 2013
Weekly Keystone team meeting
If you're interested in identity for OpenStack, we hold public meetings weekly on IRC in #openstack-meeting, on Tuesdays at 18:00 UTC. Please feel free to add items to the agenda below with your name and we'll cover them.
Agenda for next meeting
- [Brant] Tempest change for assignments-doesn't-check-identity
- Do we need a new blueprint? the ones we have aren't going to be obvious to tempest - split-identity is closed and federation doesn't say this.
- From last time:
- Allows both 200 and 404... could change to 200-only after keystone change merges.
- Not surprised at -1 since didn't provide any justification (more proof of concept until have blueprint)
- keystone change
- [Brant] REMOTE_USER auth v2 and v3 mismatch
- I think we should have a doc/etherpad says what plugins we want!
- Code reviews for icehouse blueprints
- [Brant] Moving keystone tests to tempest
- Tempest doesn't want our tests as they are. They have scenario tests, but they're not like our keystoneclient tests.
- Had a few proposals on the ML
- Don't put the tests in Tempest. Have new jobs, could get the code from keystone, new project, or whatever. (This would get the testing out of K6e quickly.)
- Clean up tests in keystone so that they're like tempest would accept as scenario tests, then move to tempest.
- Drop this testing - nobody else is doing this so why do we?
- Stop checkout in keystone, just test master; then can change keystone to use webtest rather than the client (like v3 tests).
- Open Topic
Previous meetings
Logs and meeting summaries of previous meetings are located here.
