Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-06-27
09:50:13 artom sfinucan, muchas gracias senor
09:51:12 artom sfinucan, I re-ordered the patches to put the delete nic one at the bottom so that it doesn't hold up the delete bdm one
09:51:30 artom If Matt's around and you both feel like re-+2ing it we can get it off our plate
09:52:02 artom I had to adjust the unit test since MagicMock didn't like the new 'tag' in vif construct
09:52:11 sfinucan artom: Yup, that's what I've done
09:53:57 sfinucan By "that", I mean +W'd. I don't think the unit test change is too controversial
09:59:18 artom sfinucan, in 10 years we'll find an obscure bug that would have been noticed right away had Matt reviewed the change and pointed out a tricky way in which the new unit test doesn't cover every case
10:00:03 sfinucan artom: Aye, but by then I'll have retired to southern Italy and you won't be able to find me
10:00:12 ralonsoh jaypipes: hi
10:03:23 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Remove mox in test_availability_zone.py https://review.openstack.org/477439
10:20:04 openstackgerrit Rikimaru Honjo proposed openstack/nova master: compute: Do not create bdms before successfully reserving a volume https://review.openstack.org/290793
11:05:07 openstackgerrit iswarya vakati proposed openstack/nova master: Add python 3.5 in classifier https://review.openstack.org/477887
11:20:23 openstackgerrit Pavel Gluschak (scsnow) proposed openstack/nova master: VStorage: changed default log path https://review.openstack.org/458557
11:25:32 openstackgerrit Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/os-vif master: Add abstract OVSDB API https://review.openstack.org/476612
11:26:43 artom The hyperv tests are... weird
11:36:23 artom As far as I can tell everything, including parameters passed to methods, and said methods return values, are mocked out
11:36:38 artom I'm not sure it's testing anything substantial
11:41:33 openstackgerrit Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/os-vif master: Use ``assert_has_calls`` to check function calls https://review.openstack.org/477469
11:49:21 openstackgerrit OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/nova master: Imported Translations from Zanata https://review.openstack.org/477091
11:56:03 openstackgerrit Gao Yuan proposed openstack/nova master: Remove mox from nova.tests.unit.virt.test_block_device https://review.openstack.org/477904
12:05:37 bhagyashri_s johnthetubaguy: Hi, Waiting for long time, Could you please review patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/409644 ? address all review comment. Thank you.
12:05:59 artom alex_xu, hi, questions about your feedback in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/376021/71/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_attach_interfaces.py@251
12:07:06 artom Having those tests in InterfaceAttachTestsV21 allowed me to use all the scaffolding that's already there. Should the new class inherit from InterfaceAttachTestsV21? That would replicate a lot of tests needlessly
12:08:21 artom If it doesn't inherit, we have to copy-paste said scaffolding
12:08:33 artom Well, maybe not the *entire* scaffolding
12:08:40 artom Let me see what I can get away with
12:08:48 artom Err, thanks for being my rubber duck :/
12:09:18 artom And if I was talking to myself the whole time and no one's here, even better, it means I haven't wasted anyone's time :)
12:15:17 alex_xu artom: we can create a new class, and you needn't copy too much code, since your test is only about schema validation, so the api method will fail at very early stage, so you needn't mock or stub_out anything
12:16:33 alex_xu artom: the new class just inherit from test.NoDBTestCase
12:16:51 openstackgerrit OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/nova master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/477982
12:17:26 artom alex_xu, yep, that totally works, thanks :)
12:17:36 alex_xu artom: np :)
12:19:45 openstackgerrit OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/os-vif master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/467173
12:21:51 jaypipes ralonsoh: heya
12:22:10 openstackgerrit OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/478083
12:24:39 jaypipes ralonsoh: did you need me for something?
12:27:09 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Delete disk metadata when detaching volume https://review.openstack.org/435082
12:27:10 openstackgerrit Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: API support for tagged device attachment https://review.openstack.org/376021
12:34:42 ralonsoh jaypipes: hi, I left a comment in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/476612/
12:34:54 ralonsoh jaypipes: about the abstraction of the ovsdb access
12:38:44 jaypipes ralonsoh: ah, gotcha
12:47:44 sfinucan sdague, alex_xu
12:47:49 sfinucan Can I kill this docs? https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/api_plugins.html
12:47:51 sfinucan *doc
12:48:45 alex_xu sfinucan: yea, but probably need new doc to teach people how to add new API to the nova
12:49:00 sfinucan Well, we don't do it as plugins anymore, right?
12:49:28 sfinucan alex_xu: Is this what you're looking for? https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/api_microversion_dev.html
12:55:19 alex_xu sfinucan: yea, although it is specific to the microversion
12:56:31 sfinucan alex_xu: Is there any other way to extend the API than with a microversion now?
12:56:41 sfinucan I thought we didn't let people extend the API anymore?
12:57:11 sdague sfinucan: we don't
12:57:21 alex_xu sfinucan: yes, that doc is for the nova developer add API to the upstream
12:57:32 sdague however the api_plugins page is the only one that talks about the how you add new bits of api code
12:57:38 sfinucan Ohhh, is it now
12:57:50 sdague the microversion page is just about changing responses in existing ones
12:57:56 sfinucan OK, I won't delete it then
12:58:05 sdague it definitely needs a rewrite
12:58:07 sfinucan But I think it will need to be reworked
12:58:08 sfinucan yup
12:58:11 sfinucan I'll include a TODO
12:58:25 sdague ++
12:58:31 alex_xu yea, probably we need to mention this new route list https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/routes.py
12:58:48 sfinucan indeed
13:11:06 jaypipes bauzas, edleafe, Guest63234: will be doing my best to push revisions on the allocation requests series while on a 5-hour long sales call today. :(
13:12:42 openstackgerrit Alex Szarka proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor init_instance:resume_guests_state https://review.openstack.org/349582
13:16:00 edleafe jaypipes: ugh
13:16:07 jaypipes edleafe: yeah.
13:16:13 edleafe jaypipes: will reply to your reply on the patch
13:16:17 jaypipes edleafe: regarding that...
13:16:48 jaypipes edleafe: so like I mentioned on my comment, I actually tried that approach first and ended up having to change just as many lines eventually in the unit tests.
13:17:12 jaypipes edleafe: It really comes down to whether we want the filter scheduler driver to be the thing that claims resources or not.
13:17:39 jaypipes edleafe: or the manager class.
13:18:16 edleafe jaypipes: can you explain why we can't have chance scheduler do claims? And I also thought that we weren't going to sidetrack this for chance scheduler
13:18:21 jaypipes edleafe: my objective was to make as few changes to the filter scheduler driver class as possible.
13:18:40 edleafe jaypipes: because if there is no claim made when a compute node gets a build request, it will claim
13:18:44 jaypipes edleafe: chance scheduler doesn't know uuids.
13:19:27 jaypipes edleafe: it's more than the chance scheduler. it's a separation of concerns thing.
13:19:47 jaypipes edleafe: I'm trying to leave the filter scheduler driver doing filtering and weighing.
13:19:57 jaypipes edleafe: and have something else (the manager) do the claiming.
13:20:22 edleafe jaypipes: but let's focus on the concept I pointed out: changing method sigs to pass compute uuids instead of just getting them when the host is updated from the compute
13:20:46 edleafe IOW, the value is already there
13:21:10 jaypipes edleafe: I was changing the method signature of the *returned* value so that the manager could do the claiming and not have to do everything in _schedule()
13:21:16 mriedem artom: was it intentional to not restrict block device tags to be unique for multiple bdms on the same instance?
13:21:21 mriedem we have no unique constraint for that
13:23:17 artom mriedem, yeah
13:23:40 artom mriedem, I don't see a use case for it either, but there might be a reason for it
13:23:59 artom For instance, two disks that have the same purpose get the same tag
13:24:03 edleafe jaypipes: I'll have to look more at that part. I was focusing on the changes to HostState
13:24:26 edleafe jaypipes: I am concerned how to select a host without first making a successful claim
13:24:38 artom mriedem, there was no real argument for or against, so by default it's allowed
13:24:50 artom Same for nics
13:24:55 artom And there it makes even less sense
13:25:07 artom Unless you're going to bond two nics and want them tagged the same? I dunno
13:25:12 jaypipes edleafe: we only make the claim after the scheduler filters and weighers have all run against the host states
13:26:06 mriedem artom: pl
13:26:08 mriedem *ok
13:26:19 bhagyashri_s johnthetubaguy: Hi, waiting for some inputs.
13:26:54 artom mriedem, plus I think semantically most people wouldn't expect a tag to be unique
13:27:02 artom When you think of tag clouds and such

Earlier   Later