| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-07-06 | |||
| 14:14:00 | dansmith | mriedem: so, exposing events is one way I guess, as long as you filter out traceback for the non-admins, but that's a whole thing | |
| 14:14:02 | mriedem | and then a black hole opened somewhere | |
| 14:14:04 | dansmith | hehe | |
| 14:14:16 | mriedem | dansmith: right, that's another option, | |
| 14:14:23 | mriedem | expose events but filter the traceback like we do for instance fault | |
| 14:14:24 | dansmith | I really think using one of the states to handle this is just asking for trouble, but ... | |
| 14:14:28 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 14:14:36 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add sample test for instance audit https://review.openstack.org/480955 | |
| 14:14:47 | mriedem | i would prefer not to complicate this with a new task_state | |
| 14:14:54 | mriedem | because at that point, | |
| 14:15:04 | mriedem | using the os-server-external-events api for this is really overloading it's function | |
| 14:15:27 | dansmith | my concern with a new state is destabilizing everything else with a new task state, which doesn't expose itself until it's out in the wild and someone finds a dead end in the "state machine" | |
| 14:15:57 | mriedem | yeah so to recap options, | |
| 14:16:17 | mriedem | 1. do nothing - end user can see the action show up for the instance but after that, shrug - maybe they can check something by ssh'ing into the guest, idk, | |
| 14:16:40 | mriedem | 2. start setting the finish_time on the action record and expose that out of the instance actions api (in the same microversion i suppose) | |
| 14:16:56 | mriedem | 3. expose the events but hide the traceback for non-admins by default (in a microversion) | |
| 14:17:21 | dansmith | 4. break the "state machine" | |
| 14:17:31 | mriedem | i was intentionally excluding that one | |
| 14:17:34 | dansmith | ack | |
| 14:18:04 | mriedem | #3 is probably the easiest | |
| 14:18:22 | mriedem | #2 would be new plumbing since we haven't ever "finished" an action record before, | |
| 14:18:29 | mriedem | so i don't know what dragons are there | |
| 14:18:44 | dansmith | might also be confusing because people will see all their actions suddenly look unfinished | |
| 14:18:49 | dansmith | like, years-old actions if they're still there | |
| 14:18:56 | mriedem | yeah, | |
| 14:18:57 | mriedem | on that note, | |
| 14:18:59 | dansmith | we couldfix that, but we'd need to finish all our actions everywhere going forward | |
| 14:19:13 | mriedem | my musing last night led to something like, consider the action finished if it had at least one event and all events had a finish_time set, | |
| 14:19:19 | mriedem | but there is a window where that could be wrong | |
| 14:19:34 | dansmith | yeah, it would flap back and forth | |
| 14:19:41 | mriedem | assuming we have any actions with >1 event | |
| 14:19:47 | dansmith | because we don't declare all our events ahead of time | |
| 14:19:51 | dansmith | would be nice if we did, but.. | |
| 14:19:57 | mriedem | sure, that's tasks api | |
| 14:19:58 | mriedem | i guess | |
| 14:20:00 | dansmith | right | |
| 14:20:05 | mriedem | watch your footing | |
| 14:20:18 | dansmith | heh | |
| 14:20:35 | mriedem | so i'm thinking "expose the events but hide the traceback for non-admins by default (in a microversion)" is the winner | |
| 14:20:47 | dansmith | I guess so | |
| 14:20:52 | dansmith | I like #1, but... yeah :) | |
| 14:20:53 | mriedem | "winner" | |
| 14:21:01 | mriedem | do quotes help? | |
| 14:21:04 | dansmith | yeah, hard to feel like you won, when that's the solution | |
| 14:21:05 | dansmith | heh | |
| 14:21:41 | mriedem | i also don't feel like working this into the same microversion, since it will clutter up an already large change, | |
| 14:21:56 | mriedem | but also not sure i want to create a new separate microversion just for that | |
| 14:22:38 | mriedem | alright, anyway, this was helpful | |
| 14:22:41 | dansmith | yeah, I dunno.. would be nice to save a microversion, but reading the history, it'll be like "this volume thing and oh also we exposed this other random thing, kthxbai" | |
| 14:22:46 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: by the way if you have not seen https://review.openstack.org/#/c/390513/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/390512/ they are releated to the issue your trying to solve | |
| 14:23:27 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: I think I saw one but not the other. I'll take a look now :) | |
| 14:24:08 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: meanwhile, I _think_ this is correct, but I'm not sure if it's even necessary given your comments about not using a fqdn for hostname https://review.openstack.org/#/c/480676/ | |
| 14:24:15 | mriedem | dansmith: that's basically how the services/hypervisors uuid api changes read out in the rest api version history and release notes :) | |
| 14:24:22 | dansmith | mriedem: heh | |
| 14:24:26 | mriedem | "take and return uuid instead of id, plus a whole bunch of other shit" | |
| 14:24:27 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: the first one is proposing a single api endpoint to return all the info to populate the metadat. the second is the nova/neutont negociation sepc where i would like to use os vif as the serialisation format | |
| 14:24:45 | mriedem | 500 microversions also sucks | |
| 14:24:59 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 14:26:38 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: lookin at it now. did you add the dns_domain field in the previous patches | |
| 14:27:12 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: I don't think it's necessary - that model does weird stuff with a 'meta' field that's mostly autopopulated | |
| 14:27:22 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Look at the patch that added 'mtu' support | |
| 14:30:01 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: fix memory locking limit https://review.openstack.org/472633 | |
| 14:30:06 | jaypipes | dansmith, ildikov: :) | |
| 14:31:41 | mriedem | mgagne: fyi in case you haven't been following along https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454322/27/nova/compute/api.py | |
| 14:31:57 | mriedem | mgagne: let's talk about how you'd like to proceed - if you want me to work on the os-instance-actions api change in there | |
| 14:32:38 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add BDM to InstancePayload https://review.openstack.org/448779 | |
| 14:40:56 | foutatoro | hi all, I'm trying to create KVM instance with ubuntu cloud images used in Openstack with virt-install but I always get the error "No bootable device found". | |
| 14:41:06 | foutatoro | can someone help me to solve that please ? | |
| 14:42:15 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-vif master: Rehome unit tests to ``tests\unit`` folder https://review.openstack.org/476623 | |
| 14:42:27 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-vif master: Use ``assert_has_calls`` to check function calls https://review.openstack.org/477469 | |
| 14:57:08 | jaypipes | while `tox -epy27,pep8`; do process_emails.sh; done | |
| 14:58:10 | mriedem | ildikov: so the cinder v3 api changes are stacked such that swap volume should get tested in the top patch which does the new style attach, right? | |
| 14:58:50 | mriedem | ildikov: because there is a swap volume test in tempest, but i don't think it runs in the normal tempest dsvm jobs because it's marked as 'slow' | |
| 14:59:19 | ildikov | mriedem: it should run as it was failing until I added the swap patch in the chain | |
| 14:59:43 | mriedem | ok i'll take a look | |
| 15:00:33 | ildikov | mriedem: you can take a thorough look at both the dependencies and on the attach patch | |
| 15:00:43 | ildikov | just to keep everyone busy :) | |
| 15:06:59 | jaypipes | mriedem: ralonsoh is looking for this (yet unmerged) patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/466040/ | |
| 15:07:20 | jaypipes | mriedem: but you're right to say that 0.3.2 doesn't include that (since obvi it's not merged yet) | |
| 15:07:57 | jaypipes | I'm approving that now. it needed rebasing after the unit test re-org | |
| 15:07:59 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: fix memory locking limit https://review.openstack.org/472633 | |
| 15:08:08 | mriedem | jaypipes: ok | |
| 15:08:14 | mriedem | something didn't smell right | |
| 15:08:31 | jaypipes | mriedem: ack | |
| 15:08:46 | jaypipes | mriedem: there's also an os-vif thing too :) | |
| 15:09:05 | mriedem | plus this monster https://review.openstack.org/#/c/449257/ | |
| 15:09:25 | jaypipes | mriedem: well, yeah, but that depends on all the others :) | |
| 15:09:36 | mriedem | right | |
| 15:09:39 | mriedem | i see a few os-vif changes, | |
| 15:09:44 | mriedem | not sure which are related, they are all marked as bug fixes | |
| 15:16:41 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add api-ref for RP traits https://review.openstack.org/474550 | |
| 15:16:42 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add api-ref for usages https://review.openstack.org/480563 | |
| 15:16:42 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add api-ref for allocations https://review.openstack.org/470933 | |
| 15:16:42 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add api-ref for traits https://review.openstack.org/474186 | |
| 15:16:43 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Make placement_api_docs.py failing https://review.openstack.org/480924 | |
| 15:16:44 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add api-ref for allocation_candidates https://review.openstack.org/481112 | |
| 15:16:44 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add api-ref for RP allocations https://review.openstack.org/450550 | |
| 15:16:44 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Volkov proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Add api-ref for RP usages https://review.openstack.org/450105 | |
| 15:22:38 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: scheduler uses allocation candidates https://review.openstack.org/476631 | |
| 15:22:39 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: WIP - placement: claim resources in scheduler https://review.openstack.org/476632 | |