| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-cyborg - 2020-04-16 | |||
| 03:09:58 | brinzhang | Sundar: we are still in testing | |
| 03:10:40 | Sundar | xinranwang: The API guide that brinzhang posted above lists the unsupported operations. Many opes there are important for operators. Sean Mooney from Nova is also working on some of these ops for V release, I think. You may want to check with him. | |
| 03:11:00 | Sundar | brinzhang: Good to know. Thanks. | |
| 03:11:15 | brinzhang | Yumeng: sean-k-mooney works on evacuate now | |
| 03:11:20 | Sundar | Yumeng: Thanks for posting the V release etherpad. | |
| 03:11:35 | brinzhang | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/715326/ | |
| 03:12:04 | chenke | Hi Sundar, do you mean sean will implement some virtual machine operations in the next version? | |
| 03:12:22 | xinranwang | sean-k-mooney: Is there already some patches from sean mooney? I'd like to have a look. | |
| 03:12:28 | Sundar | chenke: Yes, he says he intends to do that | |
| 03:12:28 | xinranwang | Sundar: | |
| 03:12:46 | Sundar | xinranwang: Please see https://review.opendev.org/#/c/715326/ | |
| 03:13:15 | xinranwang | Sundar: thanks. | |
| 03:13:15 | chenke | Okay, this is good news, for both cyborg and nova》 | |
| 03:13:51 | Sundar | Yes.Shall we get started on our patches? https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/cyborg+branch:master | |
| 03:14:03 | Sundar | I am reviewing https://review.opendev.org/#/c/696089/ | |
| 03:14:33 | chenke | Sure. | |
| 03:14:55 | brinzhang | Sundar https://review.opendev.org/#/c/696089/, how about this patch? need your check | |
| 03:15:25 | brinzhang | except some nits inline, others looks good to me | |
| 03:15:36 | Sundar | brinzhang: Yes, that's what I am looking at. Will complete after this meeting. | |
| 03:16:13 | Sundar | BTW, Release candidate 1 for Ussuri is due Apr 23 https://releases.openstack.org/ussuri/schedule.html | |
| 03:16:36 | Sundar | So, 8 days left. What are the highest priority patches to merge before that? | |
| 03:17:11 | Yumeng | brinzhang: Thanks for posting 696089! | |
| 03:17:22 | Sundar | Programming support https://review.opendev.org/698190 ? | |
| 03:18:18 | shaohe_feng | link: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cyborg-victoria-goals | |
| 03:18:32 | shaohe_feng | I have add this program API in the etherpad | |
| 03:18:42 | shaohe_feng | this is really needed in product env to adopt cyborg | |
| 03:18:43 | Yumeng | Sundar: from my side. I think Zuul check bandit failure can be merged before Ussuri is due. https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:fix-bandit-check-failures+(status:open+OR+status:merged) | |
| 03:18:56 | Sundar | Yumeng: agreed | |
| 03:19:23 | Sundar | But it is failing the bandit check :) | |
| 03:19:32 | brinzhang | Yumeng, I found the bandit are not be voted, so you should enable it in zuul task | |
| 03:19:59 | brinzhang | and that should be works fine, that we can consider merge it. | |
| 03:20:31 | brinzhang | a questions, what is bandit to do? I am know few of it | |
| 03:20:32 | Yumeng | Sundar, brinzhang: yes. After we fixed all failure, we can set that to voting. and at that time, bandit check will not fail again. | |
| 03:21:09 | brinzhang | IMO, firstly, you should enable this task in zuul task | |
| 03:21:29 | Sundar | brinzhang: Bandit is a tool to detect security flaws. https://pypi.org/project/bandit/ | |
| 03:21:32 | brinzhang | than fix the failure, that we can ensure that correctly | |
| 03:22:20 | brinzhang | Sundar: ack, thanks, will see it later | |
| 03:22:23 | Sundar | brinzhang: bandit is now a non-voting job. We need to fix the issues there and then make it voting. Otherwise, other open patches will be affected. | |
| 03:22:48 | xinranwang | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/696089/ The rafactor arq api is also important, I think. | |
| 03:22:48 | Yumeng | bandit is for code security check, which can check operations like if shell operations in cyborg code is safe | |
| 03:22:49 | chenke | Ye. I think that's the right way | |
| 03:23:07 | Sundar | So, the programming API https://review.opendev.org/698190 is not for Ussuri? | |
| 03:23:10 | brinzhang | Sundar: I mean, we should enable it as the base patch, and then fix the issue, right? | |
| 03:24:00 | shaohe_feng | Bandit will scan the python code and gen AST to check security issues | |
| 03:24:49 | s_shogo | Sundar , shaohe_feng : As I mentioned in the program patch , as reply for the Sundar's comment (https://review.opendev.org/698190) , I would like to take discussion the interface of PATCH API or not. IMO, that effects the schedule of merge. | |
| 03:25:15 | shaohe_feng | we had better let programming API in cyborg as soon as possible | |
| 03:25:34 | shaohe_feng | so we should try do our best to make it ready | |
| 03:26:04 | shaohe_feng | this is a very important feature | |
| 03:26:16 | shaohe_feng | s_shogo thank you for post this feature. | |
| 03:26:19 | Sundar | brinzhang: IMHO, it is better to have a patch series that fixes the open bandit issues and then make it a voting job. We need to merge other open patches for Ussuri. They will be affected if we make it a voting job too soon. Agreed? | |
| 03:26:24 | brinzhang | shaohe_feng：I also prefer to use update method | |
| 03:26:45 | shaohe_feng | update for firmware update? | |
| 03:27:04 | shaohe_feng | do you means a new update API? | |
| 03:27:52 | brinzhang | Sundar: we just enable the vote in zuul, but cannot merged, that cannot impact any open patches, I think | |
| 03:27:59 | Yumeng | Sundar,brinzhang : Agreed. We should fix bandit failures first, then update bandit job as voting in zuul check. otherwise, if we change voting first, other patches will get Zuul -1. | |
| 03:28:19 | shaohe_feng | let's welcome a new fresher haibin-huang | |
| 03:28:38 | brinzhang | if we just fix that bandit failures, we cannot ensure it work fine after we enabled bandit vote in zuul | |
| 03:28:40 | Yumeng | brinzhang: I will post all patches for bandit today. | |
| 03:28:44 | shaohe_feng | she will try to help verify the program API in product evn. | |
| 03:29:17 | chenke | s/she/he | |
| 03:29:28 | haibin-huang23 | I am very glad to join cyborg family. | |
| 03:29:29 | Sundar | Welcome haibin-huang . Would you like to introduce yourself? | |
| 03:29:38 | shaohe_feng | sorry, he :] | |
| 03:29:48 | Yumeng | welcome haibin-huang! :) | |
| 03:29:53 | shaohe_feng | haibin-huang you can help to review this new API | |
| 03:29:58 | brinzhang | welcome haibin-huang | |
| 03:30:03 | chenke | welcome haibin again. since beijing hackson. | |
| 03:30:17 | s_shogo | welcome haibin-huang | |
| 03:30:18 | xinranwang | welcome haibin-huang23 | |
| 03:30:26 | songwenping | welcome haibin-huang too | |
| 03:30:41 | shaohe_feng | #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698190/ | |
| 03:30:59 | brinzhang | Yumeng: ok, sound good, we shuold ensure the bandit run works fine, than star merge the open fix bandit patches | |
| 03:31:04 | haibin-huang23 | I am from Intel. I work on ONAP in past years. I focus on multicloud in ONAP project | |
| 03:31:22 | haibin-huang23 | thank you everyone | |
| 03:31:55 | Sundar | Good to know you, haibin-huang23 | |
| 03:32:24 | brinzhang | shaohe_feng, Sundar: the program API, if we use update instead of patch, is it ok? | |
| 03:33:51 | Sundar | brinzhang: The HTTP verbs are PUT, POST and PATCH. When you say update, which one do you mean? | |
| 03:34:22 | brinzhang | shaohe_feng, Sundar: ... PUT, soory | |
| 03:34:33 | Sundar | IMO, PATCH is the one that is closest in semantics to the programming operation. We are also using it for programming during ARQ binding. | |
| 03:35:06 | shaohe_feng | brinzhang you can read feilding's paper | |
| 03:35:42 | shaohe_feng | try to find which is more accurate | |
| 03:36:33 | brinzhang | I just think it's not very popular, if you all think that ok, I will be not concern this ^ | |
| 03:36:49 | songwenping | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718584/ | |
| 03:36:55 | Sundar | PUT should be idempotent. PATCH need not be. The programming operation is not idempotent -- it can fail once and succeed the next time | |
| 03:37:26 | shaohe_feng | but the patch seems is newer method, I'm not sure feilding have discuss the patch in his paper. | |
| 03:38:09 | Sundar | brinzhang: I think you pointed me to some Nova oprrations. But Nova developers themselves criticized my patches when I followed their precedent. :) | |
| 03:38:20 | Sundar | *operations with PUT | |
| 03:39:01 | brinzhang | Sundar: I see that, and I have not looked into | |
| 03:39:11 | brinzhang | pls see https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718584/ | |
| 03:40:46 | brinzhang | and https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718584, that revert device and deployable when resource provider create fail | |
| 03:41:25 | Sundar | Does everybody think that the right approach is to delete/revert Cyborg objects when a Placement update fails? | |
| 03:41:30 | brinzhang | Sundar: did you review this patch? | |
| 03:41:37 | shaohe_feng | brinzhang why do you prefer PUT? | |
| 03:42:18 | songwenping | i am sorry my network is not good | |
| 03:42:45 | brinzhang | songwenping: Sundar said Does everybody think that the right approach is to delete/revert Cyborg objects when a Placement update fails? | |
| 03:43:36 | Sundar | xinranwang, Yumeng, s_shogo, shaohe_feng, all: Re. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718584, Does everybody think that the right approach is to delete/revert Cyborg objects when a Placement update fails? | |
| 03:44:43 | xinranwang | IMO, It is reasonable. | |
| 03:45:16 | xinranwang | Otherwise, the conductor will not notice the diff and will now report to placement correctly. | |
| 03:45:20 | shaohe_feng | Let me think about it | |
| 03:45:46 | xinranwang | which will cause inconsistency | |