Community: Public Core Meeting Meeting - April, May 2017

[gundalow]

Please leave a comment regarding any agenda item you wish to discuss. If you don't show up for the meeting, your item will be skipped.

If your IRC nick is different from your Github username, leave that as well.

See https://github.com/ansible/community/blob/master/MEETINGS.md for the schedule

Once an item has been addressed it should get strike-though ~~strike-though~~

[gundalow]

Discuss extending the module "shipit" workflow to non-modules, such as:

• lib/ansible/plugins
• lib/ansible/module_utils
• contrib/inventory

Migrated from

• https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/150#issuecomment-277025899
• https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/156#issuecomment-283631658

Update 12 Jan 2017 Meeting

• All approved. We'll start with contrib/inventory as most of those are community maintained as it is.
  
  
  
  • Will come up with a list of dynamic inventory proposed metadata for next week.
  
  
  • bcoca created spreadsheet; will update us on status.
  
  

Update 9th Feb 2017 Meeting
For contrib/inventory

• Spreadsheet exists
• bcoca to speak with @abadger to find out how we add python metadata to config files
• bcoca to organise meeting (internally?) to vote and get metadata agreed

Feb 21 Meeting

• For dyn inventory config files, abadger proposes that the config files use the asociated script's metadata.
  
  
  
  • Note: There are both yml and ini config files. Need to make sure both are handled by the metadata code.
  
  
  • ryansb will rename the one outlier, consul.ini to consul_io.ini to match with the script consul_io.py. (code will look for both file names for backwards compat) Completed
  
  

Mar 2 Meeting

• Nothing new to discuss while we wait on module metadata to be reworked.

Mar 14

• Metadata rework is done.

2017-03-23

• jtanner to evaluate and write bot workflow for non-module shipits
• tracked in https://github.com/ansible/ansibullbot/issues/437
• need more info on what 'rework is done' means
  
  
  
  • Metadata rework done means that the final draft of metadata 1.0 was accepted and the modules have that form of the metadata.
    
    2017-04-18
  
  
• jtanner, are there any other decisions that need to be discussed here? Or are we at the point where everything is approved just needs to be implemented?

[gundalow]

From luto: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/19297 Fix for wildcards inside of a path for fileglob lookup (ie: with_fileglob: "/tmp/*/some.conf")

Note this is for stable-2.2 and stable-2.3

Migrated from https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/150#issuecomment-277029768

• 24 Jan Meeting: bcoca had two observations which need to be considered as the code is reviewed:
  
  
  
  • (1) bcoca: dwim code always needs careful consideration because it can break a lot of things and isn't always obvious why it's doing things.
  
  
  • Submitter (rupran) says: "what it basically does is factor out a part of path_dwim_relative_stack (leaving the functionality untouched) to use it in with_fileglob"
  
  
  • (2) bcoca: lookups should use same function, once you start diverting them they become unpredictable but just on consistency with lookups, not happy to duplicate and modify functionality
  
  
• 9 Feb: @bcoca to review
• 21 Feb: Still on @bcoca's radar to review
• 2 Mar: Still on @bcoca's radar to review
• 7 Mar: Recently rebased. Still on bcoca's radar.
• 4 Apr: Alternative fix from bcoca https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/23265
• 11 Apr: Lots of options on how this should work, @abadger to enumerate and revisit in future meeting
• enumeration and pros/cons of alternatives: https://gist.github.com/abadger/7f9466272d84fad9ab7c4207a65a67fd
• 18 Apr: @abadger and @bcoca discussed and think that there's pretty big cornercases for all the strategies except erroring. They agree that we can handle wildcards in absolute paths but not relative paths. So bcoca will update the PR to error in that case.

[gundalow]

Define and document proposals process i.e https://github.com/ansible/proposals/issues/50 was created and 'agreed' to immediately, w/o giving time for community feedback, which is happening now after implementation.

Migrated from https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/150#issuecomment-277304534

We might need to review/update this:
https://github.com/ansible/proposals/blob/master/proposals_process_proposal.md

7 Feb Meeting

Discussed at the meeting. Many problems with the meta-proposal for creating proposals were discussed. Minimum timeframes were proposed but no agreement could be come to. Proposal documenting the new proposal process was asked for.

14 Feb Meeting

• ACTION: allanice001 has kindly offered to raise a PR to update proposals_process_proposal.md
  
  
  
  • In the future we can look at moving this under docs.ansible.com/ansible/NEWDIR/process_proposal.html , Details about our release process, proposal process, etc will go there, rather than under dev_guide. Need to bikeshed a name. This is something for after Ansible 2.3 is released.
  
  

2 Mar Meeting

• No updates from allanice001. Still waiting on PR to update proposal.

2017-03-23
reviewed: https://github.com/ansible/proposals/pull/59
no consensus, some feedback (see meeting notes) to be posted on ticket.

20174-04

• https://github.com/ansible/proposals/pull/59 needs updating based on review comments

[gundalow]

from @bcoca
How should paths work?
https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/22546

2017-04-04

• Not just a bugfix, it's setting expectations on how pathing works
• tkuratomi thinks that relative paths have too much ambiguity and would not expect many of the paths to be relative to the config file. Would rather have relative paths that cannot be made relative to playbook error.
• bcoca and tkuratomi both voiced tentative support for alikins' idea of having placeholders for relative to CONFIG, CWD, etc that could be used.
  2017-04-18
• Deferred for now (ansible config may interfere with prototyping). To be put back on the agernda when we're ready to code/make a decision.

[gundalow]

expand doc fields
https://github.com/ansible/proposals/issues/58

2017-03-21:
types +1 as long as they are strict list
config: @bcoca to provide more examples as it seems to overlap with existing options

2017-03-23:
new proposal seems close to consensus, some details to discuss:

• priorities
• shared docs (fragments?)
• field naming (bikeshed away)

Ticket is open to updates/discussion and once those are done it will be brought back for final approval

2017-04-11:

• abadger/bcoca/nitzmahone are OK with proposal as-is, ready for implementation?
  2017-04-18
• No objections/further comments have been raised this week.. Asked at meeting if anyone else had something to say and nothing was added. Calling this approved. Go forth and implement!

[gundalow]

From bcoca

Now that we support docs for many more plugin types, should we require all new plugins of those types to have docs included?

2017-03-30

• All new plugins should have docs
• Should be enforced by CI
• We should not just add placeholder docs to existing to make them pass - will be difficult to know what requires work.
• Therefore CI requires skip-list

2017-04-18

• Note: not all plugins support docs yet. Use andible-doc -h to figure out which types of plugins need to be tested

• This seems to be approved once CI can enforce it. Leaving this on the agenda until we know mattclay is aware of it, then can remove.

[gundalow]

From @mattclay

ansible/ansible#9563 (Adding nested dictionary lookups) - Do we want to accept this PR?

NOTE: Tests were passing until more strict checks were added recently. Docs will need to be updated to reference the 2.4 release instead of 2.2.

[gundalow]

Ansible 2.3.0 FINAL has been released. Thank you for all your help with this release
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ansible-project/aKnggI-Y8dk

[nitzmahone]

Revisit frequency/timing of core meetings- participation and efficacy feels pretty low lately.

Decided on keeping current schedule for now.

[thaumos]

2017-04-25 Meeting

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-04-25/ansible_core_team_meeting.2017-04-25-19.00.html
Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-04-25/ansible_core_team_meeting.2017-04-25-19.00.txt
Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-04-25/ansible_core_team_meeting.2017-04-25-19.00.log.html

[gundalow]

Module option validation. passed on to @privateip as shown below

I've recently seen a few modules that:

• Ensure an int is within a specific range
• Ensure a option is an IPv4 (or IPv6) address

Should class AnsibleModule in basic.py be updated to support these?

201705-02

• This would be good, though not in basic.py
• Solution should be based on https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/17731#issuecomment-256148500 + https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/17731#issuecomment-268034339~~

[azaghal]

aka branko on IRC

I would like to get some feedback for a dconf module. Since I have some obligations on next Tuesday, if this could be discussed during meeting on Thursday, 2017-05-11, that would be great.

https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-11/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-11-15.00.log.html#l-108

https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-11/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-11-15.00.log.html#l-109

Before I continue making changes to the proposed pull request, I would like to get feedback on what would be acceptable in order to merge it so I would not spend effort going into wrong direction.

Problem is as follows:

• dconf is configuration database used by a lot of Gnome and/or GTK+ applications. A module that wraps around it makes it possible to automate provisioning of configuration for such applications.
• In order to change settings via dconf, it is necessary to have a running D-Bus user session. Session is provided by running dbus-daemon binary.
• In order to ensure integrity and avoid accidental overwrites of settings, one should not run multiple D-Bus user sessions.
• Connection to D-Bus session is specified via environment variable DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRESS.
• Detecting a running D-Bus user session address is a non-trivial matter due to lack of standardisation in D-Bus itself, and across distributions. If you are running systemd, the address should be predictable. If running something else, not so much. For example, on Gentoo this is a random string.
• D-Bus user session (dbus-daemon) can be launched in different ways based on D-Bus version present. If you're lucky (running D-Bus 1.8.0+), you can use dbus-run-session to wrap your command, and it will kill off the dbus-daemon once your command exits. If not, you need to launch the daemon and make sure to kill it off after you're done.
• Current implementation in the pull request will try its best to find a running session, and if that fails it will run its own. Code will also clean-up after itself as needed, supporting both the dbus-run-session and spawning of its own daemon.
• Problem is that this means the dconf module is behaving like a process manager, at least for D-Bus user session. This might not be desirable behaviour for publicly available Ansible module. As pointed out on IRC by sivel, a module should not manage daemon processes.
• Alternative would be to rely and require user to take care of spawning D-Bus user session and providing the address. However, this reduces usability, and pushes burden with all the listed things onto module user (and good luck someone would read up on how D-Bus daemon is spawned and killed - I know I didn't until somebody told me in the pull request review :).

[alikins]

I plan on discussion a merge of the facts cleanup fairly soon. This is the facts cleanup based on the 2.4 roadmap (see https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/23012 and https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/docs/docsite/rst/roadmap/ROADMAP_2_4.rst)

https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-09/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-09-19.00.log.html#l-82

[thaumos]

2017-05-09 Meeting

12:55 <@zodbot> Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-09/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-09-19.00.html
12:55 <@zodbot> Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-09/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-09-19.00.txt
12:55 <@zodbot> Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-09/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-09-19.00.log.html

[gundalow]

Ansible 2.2.3 FINAL released, 2.1.6rc1 and 2.3.1rc1 available for testing

All of these releases address at least one CVE (listed below). Users of 2.2.x should upgrade to 2.2.3 as soon as possible. The CVE impacting 2.1.x and 2.3.0 is MODERATE in nature, however users should look to upgrade as soon as the final releases are done.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ansible-devel/etlpnJDerY0

[thaumos]

2017-05-11 Meeting

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-11/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-11-15.00.html
Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-11/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-11-15.00.txt
Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-11/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-11-15.00.log.html

[azaghal]

aka branko on IRC

Would like to discuss https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/23015 once again (dconf module) since in the current form module might be a bit useless even to me.

action : https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-16/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-16-19.00.log.html#l-76

[gundalow]

~~Is DOCUMENTATION = r''' the correct way"? If so we need to update our docs. Ditto. For RETURNS and EXAMPLES. ~~

action: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-16/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-16-19.00.log.html#l-170

answer: depends on context

[thaumos]

https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/23038, proposal to have backported to 2.3

action: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-16/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-16-19.00.log.html#l-203

[thaumos]

2017-05-16 Meeting

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-16/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-16-19.00.html
12:40 Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-16/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-16-19.00.txt
12:40 Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-16/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-16-19.00.log.html

[gundalow]

Ansible Contributor Summit 4 (Part of AnsibleFest 2017 London)

We are happy to announce our fourth Ansible Contributors Summit!
AnsibleFest London (http://www.ansible.com/ansiblefest) will be on Thursday 22nd June, and the Contributor Summit will be held on Wednesday 21st June, from 9:30am to 4pm (time subject to change).

Contributors Summit is a day-long working session with the core team and key contributors to discuss important issues affecting the Ansible community. You can participate in person or online

Proposed topics: https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/ansible-summit-june-2017

See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ansible-devel/stUITiM6hMs for more info

action: noted

[thaumos]

2017-05-18 Meeting

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-18/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-18-15.00.html
09:00 Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-18/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-18-15.00.txt
09:00 Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-18/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-18-15.00.log.html

[thaumos]

2017-05-23 Meeting

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-23/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-23-19.01.html
Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-23/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-23-19.01.txt
Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-23/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-23-19.01.log.html

[Akasurde]

Need suggestion about Yum module - ansible/ansible #24822

note: tested with downgrade + upgrade
action: integration tests to be written

[bcoca]

vote on https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/24867

note previous vote is thought to have been to reject PR

action decide on action for PR and provide sufficient reasoning

action dag to remove cosmetic changes and abadger+jtanner +1 on merge

[bcoca]

do we allow 'none/null' values on required parameters?

https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/24871

action vote results were "yes" at last meeting

note vote results were "yes" at last meeting

[thaumos]

2017-05-25 Meeting

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-25/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-25-15.00.html
08:58 Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-25/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-25-15.00.txt
08:58 Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-25/ansible_core_meeting.2017-05-25-15.00.log.html

[willthames]

when: conditions are warning even for variables composed of other variables - this is most unexpected.

https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/25053

I almost certainly won't be able to make the meetings (1am and 5am my time) but @bcoca is aware of my thoughts.

My helpful proposal that should catch 99% of problems but not cause issues for lots of users (i.e. it should be an improvement, but not necessarily perfect) is:

'{{' in condition and '}}' in condition or '{%' in condition and '%}' in condition

action: need to revisit once sivel can attend and discuss complete removal of warning

[mikedlr]

The apt package installing module is a bit inefficient and could do with proper refactoring. There was a new patch to handle multi-architecture. I tried to make a unit test for it and it turned up a few of obvious deficiencies. For example the following:

• there's a huge section of code hidden inside a try which makes exception handling very unpredictable
• the dpkg installation function is too big and complex

• every .deb which is examined requires three external calls to dpkg (in turn calling dpkg-deb) and so it's needlessly inefficient and complex.

  I've made more detailed comments in my review in the pull request for the apt module.

This is a core maintained module so it would be good if someone could look at it and see if they'd be interested in taking on fixing it. @evgeni who wrote the patch is willing to help but doesn't think he can drive this. I can help with making the unit tests but don't really know the module or debian packaging so well. @gundalow suggested taking this up in the core meeting and will be willing to talk about it if I'm not available.

action: mentioned PR is merged
action: mikedlr to open new bugs on refactoring so we can mark needs_contributor

[willthames]

There are a lot of curated modules in the aws space. I wonder how many of them the committer team are really willing to support - should we make some/most/all of them community managed?

_ec2_vpc.py
aws_kms.py
cloudformation.py
ec2.py
ec2_ami.py
ec2_asg.py
ec2_eip.py
ec2_elb.py
ec2_elb_lb.py
ec2_facts.py
ec2_group.py
ec2_key.py
ec2_lc.py
ec2_metric_alarm.py
ec2_remote_facts.py
ec2_scaling_policy.py
ec2_tag.py
ec2_vol.py
ec2_vpc_dhcp_options.py
ec2_vpc_igw.py
ec2_vpc_nacl.py
ec2_vpc_nacl_facts.py
ec2_vpc_net.py
ec2_vpc_net_facts.py
ec2_vpc_peer.py
ec2_vpc_route_table.py
ec2_vpc_subnet.py
ec2_vpc_subnet_facts.py
ec2_vpc_vgw.py
efs.py
efs_facts.py
iam.py
s3.py
s3_bucket.py
s3_lifecycle.py
s3_logging.py
sns_topic.py
sqs_queue.py
sts_assume_role.py
sts_session_token.py

action willthames committer rights to be discussed internally

action aws maintainers to group together and communicate

[willthames]

What constitutes authorship for a module? What criteria should there be to be added to the authors list? What responsibilities (if any) does being added to the authors list bring?

[jctanner]

Meeting ended Tue May 30 20:49:18 2017 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot .
4:49 PM Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-30/ansible_core_team_meeting.2017-05-30-19.00.html
4:49 PM Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-30/ansible_core_team_meeting.2017-05-30-19.00.txt
4:49 PM Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-05-30/ansible_core_team_meeting.2017-05-30-19.00.log.html

[chriskarel]

I'd like to bring up PR #24580 https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/24580

I believe the PR is complete, and even has some additional unit tests. But it hasn't been approved enough to get included. One of the module maintainers recommended bringing it up in this meeting.

[gundalow]

https://github.com/ansible/proposals/issues/65 Allow documenting option deprecation

[erasmix]

I would like to discuss PR#21857 and PR#21764 on the next Core Meeting

[pilou-]

I would like to request reviews for PR#23862.

[dagwieers]

We need guidance on ordered dictionaries for Windows modules. I prefer a common solution. https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/25265#issuecomment-306209518

[dagwieers]

Would like to discuss:

• The purpose of connection: local -- ansible/ansible#24083
• Allowing host-lists (rather than dicts) in YAML inventories -- ansible/ansible#22567

[cyberark-bizdev]

I would like to discuss PR#21857 and PR#21764

@erasmix will be attending
@cyberark-bizdev will be in standby for discussion

[azaghal]

I would like to discuss if there is anything else I could do to have the following pull requests merged:

• https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/24576
• https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/23015
• https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/22956

[thaumos]

Please use https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/162 going forward.

[gundalow]

Rolled over to June's agenda, please use https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/162