Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-05-26
19:20:42 mriedem mtreinish: requirements.txt + bindep?
19:21:28 mriedem we used to have a fairly full package list in https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/development.environment.html#explicit-install-clone
19:21:34 mriedem but then we got bindep and that was cleaned up
19:21:50 melwitt lol, we have the same thing in santa cruz https://www.mysteryspot.com/
19:22:23 mtreinish mriedem: and bindep are just the deps for running the tests (like what you need to build libxml, etc)
19:23:19 mtreinish like where does it say I need qemu-img installed?
19:23:37 mriedem mtreinish: where does it say you need hyper-v or vcenter installed?
19:23:49 mriedem or a power 8 rack for powervm? :)
19:24:11 mriedem https://docs.openstack.org/ocata/config-reference/compute/hypervisors.html
19:24:21 mriedem is anything hypervisor specific
19:26:02 mtreinish mriedem: well powervm isn't in tree :)
19:26:41 sdague mtreinish: surprise! it mostly is
19:27:03 openstackgerrit Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Changing deleting stale allocations warning to debug https://review.openstack.org/468519
19:27:10 mtreinish oh, it started merging
19:27:56 mriedem yeha
19:27:57 mriedem *yeah
19:28:06 mtreinish mriedem: so I agree there are some bits that are config dependent, but clearly outlining the requirements for using nova seems like something we should do
19:28:08 mriedem i actually got on efried the other night about docs
19:28:21 mriedem mtreinish: i have triaged it as opinion
19:28:30 mriedem which means it is now in purgatory
19:28:38 mtreinish mriedem: especially since there are things which you need like qemu-img which are always needed (at least from what I could tell)
19:28:45 mtreinish mriedem: what does opinion even mean?
19:28:53 mriedem it means, meh
19:28:55 cdent mriedem: I've pushed fixes for both of those bugs, but only ran the nearby tests before I did. It is time for my weekend to start so feel free to fix everything I've forgotten.
19:29:01 mriedem cdent: thanks
19:31:13 sdague mtreinish: I think writing the arch install guide in nova tree is out of scope. That is kind of part of what the install guide and packaging is about
19:32:19 mtreinish I'm not saying the arch install guide. (I haven't even tried that) I'm saying we're shipping code with external requirements that aren't documented anywhere
19:32:29 mtreinish sure packaging solves this, but how do packagers know what's needed
19:33:02 mtreinish it doesn't seem unreasonable to say if installing from source make sure you have X, Y, Z installed since nova calls out to those
19:33:03 sdague by being part of our community
19:33:25 efried mtreinish Since you're clearly interested in furthering the cause of powervm in-tree, here ya go: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443189/
19:33:43 sdague I do get in a perfect world there would be a crisp "here is everything you need" interface, but in the list of priorities that's not really in the top 100
19:33:59 efried (and mriedem, updating refs is on our to-do list, near the top)
19:34:22 sdague as the only people it's impacting is building from source without using any of the deployment projects
19:34:36 mtreinish sdague: I'm not saying it's a priority. I filed a bug to just recognize it's a gap
19:34:54 mriedem mtreinish: i didn't invalidate the bug, i just marked it low priority
19:34:58 mriedem if someone wants to take that on they can
19:35:12 mriedem with my reservations about it noted in there
19:35:18 mriedem i.e. complicated and getting out of date easily
19:35:48 mtreinish efried: I guess that I can take a look...
19:36:18 efried mtreinish It's a biggie. Perhaps you can figure out a way to parallel-process the review using that cloud in your closet...
19:36:50 sdague mtreinish: right, so my feeling is that bugs not in the top 100 priorities are just hay hiding needles in the stack.
19:37:48 sdague efried: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443189/24/nova/virt/powervm/tasks/storage.py ... I'm confused about the LOG.exception that have "ignoring" in their message
19:38:01 sdague because, that's going to be a giant stack trace which will scare people
19:38:06 sdague but then being "meh"
19:38:10 mtreinish efried: I asked ibm to give me funding for that cloud and I was told no. They didn't even offer to give me any power boxes
19:38:12 sdague seems contradictory
19:38:12 efried sdague Taskflow esoterica
19:38:17 mtreinish not that my circuit breaker could handle them
19:39:00 mriedem leakypipes: did https://review.openstack.org/#/c/409706/ resolve that mitaka issue you were chasing the other night?
19:39:09 sdague efried: ok, intentional, then I'm fine with it
19:39:24 efried sdague This code only gets hit if the forward part of a Task Flow failed, and it's reverting. If one of the revert methods raises an exception, that's the exception that winds up getting raised overall, obscuring the original and bailing out of the remainder of the revert sequence.
19:39:44 sdague efried: sure
19:39:52 sdague I get catching the exception
19:40:12 efried sdague I had a talk with harlowja about this "feature" a few weeks ago, and we brainstormed some ideas to make it a bit more friendly; but for the time being...
19:40:26 sdague but you still want to dump the stack trace, even though you are saying "we're ignoring this fail"
19:40:28 efried sdague But yeah, I want to see the stack trace regardless, in case it points to something I want to fix.
19:40:29 sdague ?
19:40:31 sdague ok
19:40:50 sdague +2
19:41:09 efried sdague Thanks!
19:42:27 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Changing deleting stale allocations warning to debug https://review.openstack.org/468519
19:44:42 superdan mriedem: heh,
19:44:53 superdan mriedem: I just found and fixed a bug in the hypervisor-stats db query
19:45:00 superdan rebased to submit, merge conflict
19:45:06 superdan "that's impossible, this code hasn't changed in forever"
19:45:15 superdan wah wah wah, fixed three days ago by Kevin_Zheng
19:45:42 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Catch InstanceNotFound when deleting allocations https://review.openstack.org/468517
19:46:02 mriedem superdan: heh yup
19:46:08 mriedem did that merge/
19:46:09 mriedem ?
19:46:16 superdan apparently it did ;)
19:46:17 mriedem oh it did
19:46:18 mriedem https://review.openstack.org/#/c/467220/
19:46:19 mriedem nice
19:46:39 superdan found it in kilo
19:46:45 mriedem you can thank yours truly for the gratuitous commit message
19:46:46 superdan was like "wow, still broken in master"
19:46:49 superdan heh
19:46:56 mriedem he taught me something on that one too,
19:47:04 mriedem remember how we though deleting a service doesn't actually delete the compute node?
19:47:08 mriedem turns out that's half true,
19:47:15 mriedem it actually does if it's a super f'ing old compute node record
19:47:57 mriedem i'm working on backports now
19:48:12 superdan sweet
19:48:56 cdent mriedem: i tested the log thing because that was the only change in the commit, and not having a test seemed lame
19:49:17 mriedem so you aren't weekending!
19:49:36 mriedem cdent: yeah i'm not saying i haven't done it myself
19:49:38 mriedem it's just, meh
19:49:58 cdent I blame figleaf. He distracted me with interesting conversation
19:50:08 cdent but soon I will eat carrots and drink wine and watch bad tv
19:50:34 mriedem ooo carrots
19:50:38 mriedem how english
19:50:39 figleaf I blame it on having to return alternate hosts
19:50:57 figleaf hey, we're growing carrots here!
19:51:02 cdent we've planted some
19:51:05 mriedem i was into alternate hosts before it was cool to be into alternate hosts
19:51:05 cdent but not ready yet
19:51:14 sdague oh, you know, we could add merged patches to the IRC bot here
19:51:23 mriedem sdague: yeah we should do that

Earlier   Later