| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-02-15 | |||
| 19:35:14 | diana_clarke | (if there are indeed no instances in that time window in both cases) | |
| 19:38:29 | mordred | well - there should almost never be instances - since we're passing in start=now(), end=now() ... (it may not be a very good test) | |
| 19:44:12 | mriedem | BobBall: johnthetubaguy: are you still around? question on this xenapi live migration fix | |
| 19:44:53 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/424428/ | |
| 19:45:03 | mriedem | from what i can tell, that will blow up if using XenAPIBridgeDriver | |
| 19:45:38 | mriedem | which is also the default vif_driver | |
| 19:46:21 | diana_clarke | mordred: That doesn't explain how it ever passed though... which is what is nagging me. | |
| 19:46:28 | mordred | diana_clarke: yah | |
| 19:47:02 | mordred | diana_clarke: it definitely passes with version='2.0' - just verified https://review.openstack.org/#/c/434428/ | |
| 19:47:15 | mordred | diana_clarke: so a payload existing with 2.0 seems to be reproducible | |
| 19:47:16 | diana_clarke | mordred: I have a hunch that if you ignore the usage error and fix the other failing 26 tests, that it will pass again. | |
| 19:47:55 | diana_clarke | mordred: Are you printing the payload in the 2.0 case? Does it differ? | |
| 19:48:34 | mordred | diana_clarke: I'm not - we only print that on test failure. I could push up a patch to cause that test to fail so that we can see it in the 2.0 case pretty easily though | |
| 19:50:00 | mriedem | sdague: can you drop the -1 on this ocata backport for rc2? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/432954/ | |
| 19:50:02 | mordred | diana_clarke: https://review.openstack.org/434482 | |
| 19:50:05 | mriedem | my fix is backported on top | |
| 19:50:24 | sdague | mriedem: can we just merge them? or you don't want to for record keeping? | |
| 19:50:45 | mriedem | sdague: i was waiting to approve the bottom patch until the top is approved | |
| 19:50:49 | mriedem | but go ahead and +2 | |
| 19:52:37 | diana_clarke | mordred: My hunch is that instance creation is failing in other tests and that the usage test has only been passing by chance (side effect of there being instances from other tests). | |
| 19:52:54 | diana_clarke | mordred: But, as always I could be wrong. Curious to see that payload. | |
| 19:54:14 | mordred | diana_clarke: me too! | |
| 19:54:48 | diana_clarke | (but now() for the time window also makes me think I'm wrong) | |
| 20:00:45 | mriedem | dansmith: i have to run out for a bit, but can you hit https://review.openstack.org/#/c/434316/ and the one below it for rc2 when you get a chance? | |
| 20:01:03 | dansmith | okay | |
| 20:26:26 | diana_clarke | mordred: That's a non-zero payload (it has instances). | |
| 20:27:47 | diana_clarke | mordred: http://logs.openstack.org/82/434482/1/check/gate-shade-dsvm-functional-legacy/e884ee5/console.html#_2017-02-15_20_14_05_828079 | |
| 20:31:12 | diana_clarke | mordred: So, I'm sticking with my initial hunch: side effects between tests. That usage test is relying on other tests to have first created instances in a very small time window. | |
| 20:31:25 | mordred | diana_clarke: cool | |
| 20:31:47 | mordred | diana_clarke: fwiw, morgan is going to make a fun fixture for us to do a project create for each test so that we're completely isolated and not bleeding over - but until then, I think reworking this test to be less flaky is a good plan :) | |
| 20:32:26 | morgan | yes i am | |
| 20:32:34 | morgan | just... dealing with unwinding some other insane ick atm | |
| 20:33:03 | morgan | may be done with that unwind today... only another... 300-400 lines of code restructure to do | |
| 20:33:48 | diana_clarke | And I'm going to go back to teaching myself tripleo. I must have been a very bad person in a past life :( | |
| 20:42:00 | morgan | diana_clarke: i'm sorry, so sorry | |
| 20:50:11 | mtreinish | morgan, mordred: fwiw, we've been planning on moving tempest's project isolation bits into the lib for the past few cycles. We could work on that together and you could reuse it in the shade tests :) | |
| 20:50:36 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/nova master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/432001 | |
| 20:51:13 | mtreinish | the isolation problem is something we had to solve a long time ago when I first enabled tempest to run in parallel workers | |
| 21:00:10 | openstackgerrit | Chris Friesen proposed openstack/nova master: show flavor info in server details https://review.openstack.org/434514 | |
| 21:01:20 | cfriesen | ^ preliminary code for displaying a subset of the flavor details directly embedded in the server details. | |
| 21:13:03 | mriedem | dansmith: did you want to get this into the next newton release (tomorrowish)? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428671/ | |
| 21:13:10 | mriedem | sounded like a nasty bug | |
| 21:14:05 | mriedem | mtreinish: can you push this over the line? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/420051/ | |
| 21:15:02 | mtreinish | mriedem: +A | |
| 21:38:14 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove dead code: _safe_destroy_instance_residue https://review.openstack.org/434528 | |
| 21:41:55 | mriedem | coreycb: do you have a fix up yet for that update_cell issue? | |
| 21:42:09 | coreycb | mriedem, i will in about a minute | |
| 21:53:50 | openstackgerrit | Corey Bryant proposed openstack/nova master: Enable defaults for cell_v2 update_cell command https://review.openstack.org/434533 | |
| 21:55:01 | coreycb | mriedem, ok submitted that. i accidentally submitted that to stable/ocata first. | |
| 21:56:28 | mriedem | coreycb: commented inline | |
| 21:58:02 | mriedem | it should just be the =None thing for the kwargs | |
| 21:58:14 | mriedem | and then probably a unit test to show that none of them are required except cell_uuid | |
| 22:00:16 | coreycb | mriedem, i think we can drop the 'if not' checks but should still pick up transport_url and db_connection from nova.conf if not passed as arguments | |
| 22:01:07 | mriedem | coreycb: why? | |
| 22:01:19 | mriedem | so that you don't have to use the command line? | |
| 22:01:33 | coreycb | mriedem, yes which is how create_cell works | |
| 22:01:51 | mriedem | dansmith: does object save() noop if the field values didn't actually change? | |
| 22:06:12 | melwitt | mriedem: I think all save() cares about is whether the fields on the object are dirty, if they are, it will save them | |
| 22:07:29 | dansmith | mriedem: depends on the implementation | |
| 22:07:40 | dansmith | mriedem: we used to try to make sure to not do anything if there were no changes, | |
| 22:07:52 | dansmith | but some people thought a save() should always have consistent refresh semantics | |
| 22:08:06 | openstackgerrit | Corey Bryant proposed openstack/nova master: Enable defaults for cell_v2 update_cell command https://review.openstack.org/434533 | |
| 22:08:09 | dansmith | so in the end I think we have no particular standard you can assume | |
| 22:09:09 | mriedem | coreycb: i left a comment in ps1 about updating the man page | |
| 22:09:19 | coreycb | mriedem, ok | |
| 22:09:44 | mriedem | otherwise it looks good | |
| 22:17:57 | openstackgerrit | Corey Bryant proposed openstack/nova master: Enable defaults for cell_v2 update_cell command https://review.openstack.org/434533 | |
| 22:18:14 | coreycb | mriedem, ok all set | |
| 22:21:03 | mriedem | lgtm | |
| 22:21:13 | mriedem | dansmith: melwitt: you guys should probably sign off | |
| 22:21:17 | mriedem | on ^ i mean | |
| 22:21:29 | dansmith | coreycb: yeah, sorry for missing that, I wrote that patch in a hurry for someone | |
| 22:22:09 | coreycb | dansmith, np at least that was an easy fix | |
| 22:22:21 | dansmith | coreycb: and now you feel like you were *partially* right, right? :P | |
| 22:22:42 | coreycb | dansmith, lol yes. redemption! :) | |
| 22:22:52 | dansmith | coreycb: but regardless, glad to see someone else poking at this stuff | |
| 22:56:10 | mriedem | coreycb: your unit test failed | |
| 22:56:28 | mriedem | http://logs.openstack.org/33/434533/3/check/gate-nova-python27-ubuntu-xenial/9e0c2cc/console.html#_2017-02-15_22_26_03_881971 | |
| 22:56:49 | mriedem | b/c of the config option thing | |
| 22:56:55 | mriedem | testtools.matchers._impl.MismatchError: 'fake:///db' != u'sqlite://' | |
| 22:57:20 | mriedem | i can fix it quick | |
| 23:00:49 | openstackgerrit | Alex Schultz proposed openstack/nova master: Add pxe support for libvirt https://review.openstack.org/434549 | |
| 23:02:44 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Enable defaults for cell_v2 update_cell command https://review.openstack.org/434533 | |
| 23:09:35 | dansmith | melwitt: I'm having unclean thoughts about ways to fool the code after an rpc call into always being to the main database for our functional tests | |
| 23:11:21 | melwitt | dansmith: why? what problem running into? | |
| 23:11:47 | dansmith | melwitt: more cells-aware api calls and hitting the recursive lock thing | |
| 23:13:33 | melwitt | dansmith: that reminds me, I had meant to mention this to you but while I was working on the counting quotas stuff, I found I needed to add something to the CellDatabases fixture like this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/416521/13/nova/tests/fixtures.py@398 | |
| 23:13:47 | melwitt | I dunno if that will help at all with what you're dealing with | |
| 23:14:10 | dansmith | melwitt: heh, I have that same change locally ;) | |
| 23:14:14 | dansmith | melwitt: problem is, that doesn't make it over fakerpc, because it's not serialized | |
| 23:14:20 | melwitt | ah, dangit | |
| 23:14:56 | dansmith | melwitt: which is fine for real, but not here.. so my unclean thoughts were around hacking the serialization via mock and jamming a flag in there we could use to just say "this should always be main_context_manager" | |
| 23:14:57 | dansmith | or something | |
| 23:15:18 | dansmith | I guess just stashing the connection url would be better or something | |
| 23:15:27 | dansmith | but still, need a serialization hack | |
| 23:15:57 | melwitt | dansmith: what do you mean by "after an rpc call"? like after the rpc, you're left with the wrong db url? | |
| 23:17:16 | dansmith | melwitt: after an rpc call you have context.db_connection=None | |
| 23:18:03 | melwitt | that should fall back to main, right | |
| 23:18:23 | dansmith | it does, but it means we call get_context with that =None, which means we take the lock, | |
| 23:18:33 | dansmith | which we have to do because we need to use whatever target_cell has set global state to | |