...
- Get branch for docs in
- Backlog/Board https://jira.onap.org/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=53&view=planning&selectedIssue=LOG-85
- Guidelines exposure on onap-discuss need examples
- JIRA work on OOM for LOG
- Discuss Integration testing of OOM in Beijing - LOG is part of this
- Discuss vFW status
- Discuss F2F
- Discuss KubeCon
- Discuss new members: Shishir Thakore @sanjay Agraharam
- Discuss Alexis work stabilizing release-1.1.0 oom
- Discuss work moving log config out of the config container - MSO prototype
- Committer review for the TSC - 1 or 2 more possible committer
- New committers discussion in prep for Beijing
- Focus on requestId flow for the new
Notes - post new committer template
- Request for Dave Williamson as committer for next meeting - michael
- Borislav raising sync issue for OOM and Logging sync -
- check on lost logging configuration on the logging-analytics repo moved to oom
- specifically docker/src in the config container
- Fix for current 1.1.0
- mso jetty container inside the war (logger) has issues unless put in after war explode - verify post start hook
- OOM Meeting Notes - 2017-12-06
- how to verify this in the future - wider review and doing a deployment - at least one review - need Acceptance Testing - and post results to the JIRA
- review all commits on logging since the 22nd to 1.1 - check the jiras - likely reopen at least one of them - start with a regression test suite for logging run on the daily CD before cherry picking to the other branch.
Analysis of the onap/ecomp issue with the ELK stack raised by Borislav A lot of the fixes since Dec 30 were done during the 3 day blitz to stabilize ONAP in prep of KubeCon and the F2F - during validating the vFW
Message: Regression test – even though MSO flows did not work until the change – we can still run rest calls to force out logs
If you look at some of the merges – we might get hammered on being light on reviewers for master – but you would need to know this was a cherry picked form 1.1 where the fixes were done first - and tested on 2 systems –which does have all the reviewers. The issue is a lack of regression testing for logs.
We need to have a plan to address changes that are approved but still cause design contention and are raised later – in the logging meeting the issue is phrased more of a design refactor issue not something that is actually fully broken - again need to retest the MSO logs - which we can now that vf-module creation works because of Alexis de Talhouët
https://gerrit.onap.org/r/#/q/status:merged+project:+oom
For example
https://gerrit.onap.org/r/#/c/25053/
was flagged as busted – but reviewed as ok because a separate patch below reverted the onap/onap back to onap/ecomp for filebeat/logback
the fix
https://gerrit.onap.org/r/#/c/25219/1
fixed this issue and was signed off – if we are talking about another change then we may need to create a new JIRA for it when we identify it
I will add an agenda item to the OOM meeting tomorrow to get this ongoing issue resolved – as in identify exactly the issue in a JIRA and add all reviewers before we adjust the yamls again –and get Borislav’s signoff.
Which brings up the fact that we likely need to consume public onap daily and run a log sanity on it asap – especially after a large number of commits and between the port to master.
We need a process for this before being put into integration testing after the F2F.
...