| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-01-05 | |||
| 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? | |
| 22:20:33 | melwitt | dansmith: it does. maybe it used to? unless I'm blind as I look in cells_api.py | |
| 22:21:57 | dansmith | well, we force a local delete in the api, | |
| 22:22:05 | melwitt | looks like the delete_everywhere will do a replay | |
| 22:22:08 | dansmith | then call direct to compute via rpc in there | |
| 22:22:09 | melwitt | but not the normal delete | |
| 22:22:17 | dansmith | ah | |
| 22:22:19 | melwitt | gawd | |
| 22:23:04 | melwitt | lol! | |
| 22:23:18 | dtp | :) so summary: | |
| 22:23:38 | dtp | no cell types in v2. ignore that if in there. just delete the tokens. | |
| 22:23:46 | dtp | with the conditional melwitt outlined above | |
| 22:23:54 | dtp | why even have the conditional if cells v1 is gone in ocata? | |
| 22:24:04 | dansmith | I would prefer it if we can avoid the conditional, but if we can't then yes | |
| 22:24:14 | dansmith | dtp: unfortunately cellsv1 will be with us for longer than that | |
| 22:24:27 | dansmith | dtp: until cellsv2 is a replacement and we have a migration path | |
| 22:24:43 | openstackgerrit | Ed Leafe proposed openstack/nova: Remove the Allocation.create() method. https://review.openstack.org/416751 | |
| 22:25:19 | melwitt | dtp: we can technically avoid the conditional because the delete_tokens rpc api is a cast i.e. broadcast that doesn't wait for a response. so it could just get sent anyway even if nothing will be there to listen to it | |
| 22:25:36 | dansmith | melwitt: what won't be there to listen for it? | |
| 22:25:41 | dansmith | melwitt: the instance having moved? | |
| 22:25:51 | melwitt | dansmith: the consoleauth service in compute cells | |
| 22:25:52 | dansmith | oh waiut | |
| 22:25:56 | dansmith | right, right | |
| 22:26:05 | dansmith | okay then you should do the conditional | |
| 22:26:12 | dansmith | IMHO of course | |
| 22:27:53 | melwitt | yeah, I hadn't thought of the possibility of just letting it run in compute cells and it not hurting anything | |
| 22:28:13 | dansmith | dtp: so, all good? | |
| 22:29:03 | dtp | i think so. thanks y'all | |
| 22:29:03 | melwitt | dansmith: wait, did you say do the conditional or did you mean don't do it? | |
| 22:29:32 | dansmith | melwitt: I mean _do_ the conditional so we're not just firing off a message into a queue that we know is unlistened to | |
| 22:29:40 | melwitt | yeah, okay | |
| 22:29:46 | dansmith | melwitt: I was originally thinking the reason for the conditional was something else | |
| 22:29:52 | melwitt | I was thinking you said the opposite | |
| 22:30:13 | melwitt | dtp: so yes on the conditional | |
| 22:30:46 | dtp | roger that | |
| 22:31:16 | dansmith | melwitt: remember when we told dtp this would be all easysauce? good times. | |
| 22:31:33 | melwitt | dansmith: yeah, I know. I keep wanting to apologize to him | |
| 22:31:36 | melwitt | sorry dtp | |
| 22:31:41 | dtp | hehe | |
| 22:31:57 | dansmith | it's like telling the driver to get into the other lane because it's faster and then getting stuck behind an accident or something | |
| 22:32:12 | dansmith | should'a kept quiet | |
| 22:32:18 | melwitt | haha | |
| 22:36:01 | dtp | you can make it up to be by having a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/336293/ :D | |
| 22:40:08 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/nova: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/415978 | |