| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-01-05 | |||
| 20:31:56 | cdent | macsz: I guess I never saw that because it didn't have the placement tag, thanks for adding it | |
| 20:32:07 | cdent | I'll go ahead and fix it right now. | |
| 20:32:12 | macsz | cdent: np | |
| 20:32:20 | macsz | cdent: ok | |
| 20:33:20 | mriedem | cdent: looks good, just waiting on test results | |
| 20:38:15 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova: [placement] fix typo in call to create auth middleware https://review.openstack.org/417178 | |
| 20:53:09 | mriedem | nova meeting in 7 minutes | |
| 20:53:12 | mriedem | bauzas: ^ fyi just for you | |
| 20:53:32 | openstackgerrit | Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova: Add check for invalid allocation amounts https://review.openstack.org/416752 | |
| 20:53:32 | openstackgerrit | Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova: Remove the Allocation.create() method. https://review.openstack.org/416751 | |
| 20:53:57 | mriedem | sdague: yeah damn i just had something fail in check http://logs.openstack.org/18/417118/1/check/gate-nova-python27-db-ubuntu-xenial/0c0c8c1/console.html#_2017-01-05_17_52_16_199447 | |
| 20:53:59 | mriedem | that test must be busted | |
| 20:54:54 | dansmith | I think I had that fail earlier today too | |
| 20:55:39 | mriedem | yeah opening a bug | |
| 20:55:40 | mriedem | damn | |
| 20:56:23 | dansmith | we should probably make the nova meeting short so you can get back to looking at that | |
| 20:57:09 | mriedem | gonna make it extra long | |
| 20:57:11 | mriedem | just for you | |
| 20:57:27 | dansmith | >:| | |
| 20:57:34 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1654393 in OpenStack Compute (nova) ""keystoneauth1.exceptions.catalog.EmptyCatalog: The service catalog is empty." in test_cinderclient_unsupported_v1" [High,Confirmed] | |
| 20:57:34 | mriedem | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1654393 | |
| 21:01:18 | bauzas | mriedem: <3 | |
| 21:01:32 | mriedem | ok e-r query patch is up | |
| 21:01:39 | bauzas | but this time, my google agenda worked :) | |
| 21:29:52 | openstackgerrit | Sujitha proposed openstack/nova: Add post hook script to run tempest with old n-api https://review.openstack.org/401395 | |
| 21:36:56 | bauzas | cdent: bonus point for the HAS-A vs. IS-A comment | |
| 21:37:05 | bauzas | very good point | |
| 21:37:11 | bauzas | I was just lazy | |
| 21:37:50 | cdent | it's not a deal breaker or anything, just seemed...tidier? | |
| 21:37:55 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova: add availability_zone field in service.update https://review.openstack.org/415857 | |
| 21:39:07 | bauzas | cdent: well, I think it's better to have a self.placement_client instead of a super().__init__() | |
| 21:43:15 | cdent | I think my eyes are going to fall out, time to leave the puter. | |
| 21:43:23 | mriedem | o/ | |
| 21:51:45 | dtp | what are the valid cell_types for cells v2? | |
| 21:55:39 | mriedem | dtp: that doesn't apply for cells v2 | |
| 21:55:48 | mriedem | well, it's not used i don't think | |
| 21:55:56 | mriedem | e.g. api vs compute | |
| 21:58:25 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova: Fix ksa mocking in test_cinderclient_unsupported_v1 https://review.openstack.org/417206 | |
| 21:58:26 | mriedem | sdague: here's to hoping this fixes the unit test race bug ^ | |
| 22:01:57 | dansmith | mriedem: dtp right, no cell types in v2 | |
| 22:02:03 | dansmith | any reference to a cell type is cellsv1 code | |
| 22:03:06 | melwitt | mriedem, dtp: yeah, it's not used in cells v2. it's just that we're trying to determine how to avoid cells v1 running a piece of code in compute cells. and there's no way to tell that from the cell_type option because it defaults to 'compute' | |
| 22:03:58 | melwitt | if we say "cell_type != compute" then it would prevent the code running in cells v2 also | |
| 22:04:33 | dtp | i was confused as to what code path would lead to https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/api.py#L1815 being executed in a cell vs the top level | |
| 22:04:40 | melwitt | we want it to run 1) always in cells v2 2) only for the api cell in cells v1 | |
| 22:05:01 | mriedem | so, if CONF.cells.enable and CONF.cells.cell_type == 'api' ? | |
| 22:05:19 | mriedem | cells.enable will only be True for cells v1 | |
| 22:05:30 | melwitt | mriedem: oooh, that sounds like it would work | |
| 22:05:39 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova: Fix ksa mocking in test_cinderclient_unsupported_v1 https://review.openstack.org/417206 | |
| 22:05:40 | mriedem | ok i think *that* ^ fixes that mock issue | |
| 22:05:44 | mriedem | based on https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.mock.html#id5 | |
| 22:05:51 | melwitt | dtp: yeah, it's complicated. and one of many reasons we are doing cells v2 and will get rid of cells v1 | |
| 22:05:54 | mriedem | mocking statics from imported libraries is a mess | |
| 22:07:03 | smcginnis | mriedem: I seem to remember puzzling over that as well at some point. | |
| 22:07:33 | smcginnis | mriedem: Looks "more correct" now. | |
| 22:07:44 | mriedem | i just 'feels' right | |
| 22:07:49 | smcginnis | :) | |
| 22:07:55 | mriedem | i code like trump governs | |
| 22:07:56 | mriedem | with the gut | |
| 22:08:10 | mriedem | well, or just not at all | |
| 22:08:12 | smcginnis | It'll be huuge. | |
| 22:08:29 | mriedem | i'll tweet about this bug and shame someone else into fixing it for me | |
| 22:08:35 | mriedem | but take all of the credit when it's fixed | |
| 22:08:42 | smcginnis | hehe | |
| 22:08:57 | mriedem | i mean, his 10 year old son can use a computer, so it can't be that hard | |
| 22:08:58 | jroll | mriedem: that's how we know you're a ptl | |
| 22:09:11 | smcginnis | LOL | |
| 22:09:18 | dtp | melwitt so you're thinking if ! cells.enable, delete the tokens? | |
| 22:12:32 | melwitt | dtp: if not cells.enable or cells.enable and cell_type == 'api'. I think. I'm looking through the code reminding myself how/when replay in a compute cell happens | |
| 22:12:57 | dansmith | melwitt: does it hurt to just run it always? | |
| 22:13:11 | dansmith | melwitt: if we ignore something missing we don't expect, we can always nuke I would think | |
| 22:13:23 | dansmith | when in doubt, throw it out | |
| 22:13:26 | melwitt | dansmith: it would send an rpc message out to nowhere, I guess | |
| 22:13:43 | dansmith | if it might crush, give it a flush | |
| 22:14:05 | melwitt | if it's a call, it would time out. but I'm guessing it's a cast | |
| 22:14:28 | dansmith | if it's a cast, let it pass | |
| 22:14:40 | melwitt | lol. I was wondering if you'd have something for that | |
| 22:14:56 | dansmith | if you wonder, let it plunder | |
| 22:15:04 | melwitt | oh boy ... | |
| 22:15:08 | dtp | but we still don't want this running in...whatever compute cells are called now? | |
| 22:15:25 | dansmith | dtp: it won't, that's api-only code | |
| 22:15:32 | dtp | oh, great | |
| 22:15:39 | dansmith | that's theconfusing part of cellsv1, | |
| 22:15:48 | dansmith | the api code is re-played in the compute cell | |
| 22:15:51 | dansmith | well, one of the confusing parts | |
| 22:15:58 | dtp | gotcha | |
| 22:16:25 | dtp | thanks, this helped | |
| 22:16:27 | melwitt | dansmith: I was just getting around to that. why is there a "if cell_type == 'api'" in there if it doesn't replay it? from what I see in nova/compute/cells_api.py it doesn't cast down to cells for delete | |
| 22:17:00 | dansmith | melwitt: I mean cellsv2 doesn't replay | |
| 22:17:28 | melwitt | dansmith: yeah, I'm looking in cells v1 and it looks like delete doesn't replay in a compute cell compute/api | |
| 22:17:35 | melwitt | guh | |
| 22:17:42 | dtp | that's what i was seeing as well | |
| 22:17:53 | dansmith | I'm lost | |
| 22:18:07 | melwitt | so I was wondering, why is there a "if cell_type == 'api'" in compute/api in the first place. maybe residue | |
| 22:18:41 | melwitt | or rather, it's really just saying "if this is cells v1, do this" | |
| 22:18:55 | dansmith | we definitely have to delete in both places in cellsv1 right? | |
| 22:19:23 | dansmith | I think we call delete in the compute cell and then it's replicated backwards in that case right? | |
| 22:19:28 | dansmith | the opposite of most calls | |
| 22:19:30 | melwitt | dansmith: from the code, it looks like it doesn't re-run the compute/api part in compute cells, is what I was observing. the use of the conditional made me think it was | |
| 22:19:41 | dansmith | melwitt: but the comment says it does right? | |