Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-11-02
16:19:11 kashyap mdbooth: I see what you mean; disregard my question. You're talking in context of this new model that Dan was proposing.
16:19:37 mdbooth kashyap: Ah, yes
16:19:54 mriedem ack
16:24:11 kashyap mriedem: Is there an Etherpad for topics to be discussed for those to follow remotely?
16:24:20 kashyap mriedem: I think the place to look at is - http://forumtopics.openstack.org/
16:24:23 kashyap ?
16:25:44 kashyap I'm intersted in this - http://forumtopics.openstack.org/cfp/details/55 (Brainstorming on perf and scale testing for lowly devs)
16:29:29 openstackgerrit Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: Transform instance-live_migration_pre notification https://review.openstack.org/482070
16:33:13 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: libvirt: do not remove inst_base when volume-backed during resize https://review.openstack.org/516395
16:33:20 melwitt mriedem: are you cool with this change now? and will we remove the DNM from the test hook change and the WIP from the tempest change to make sure those get included after? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507202
16:34:40 mriedem kashyap: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Forum/Sydney2017
16:34:45 mriedem that session on perf was rejected
16:35:05 mriedem kashyap: superseded by http://forumtopics.openstack.org/cfp/details/21
16:35:34 mriedem melwitt: i don't think we're going to turn on volume-backed live migration testing anytime soon, since it was pretty unreliable the last time i tried
16:35:45 kashyap Thanks for the links
16:37:27 melwitt mriedem: oh, bummer, didn't realize it was that unreliable. was thinking they'd be regression tests
16:37:41 mriedem +2 on the bottom change
16:37:54 mriedem melwitt: they might be better, not really sure, would have to run them through a bunch of times to see
16:38:06 mriedem https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1524898
16:38:08 openstack Launchpad bug 1524898 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Volume based live migration aborted unexpectedly" [High,In progress]
16:38:21 melwitt yep, understood
16:38:26 mriedem now that we're using pike UCA, maybe that's not as bad
16:40:07 melwitt ah, to get newer libvirt and qemu
16:40:20 mriedem yes we now have libvirt 3.6.0 and qemu 2.10
16:42:53 mriedem so we have control over the live migration job per-branch, but the neutron multi-node job runs live migration tests too, and that would maybe start failing on stable branches if we enabled the volume-backed test in tempest; but the neutron multinode job might be non-voting on stable too...
16:43:00 mriedem all things that must be considered...
16:43:49 melwitt good points
16:46:32 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: allow filter providers in tree https://review.openstack.org/377215
16:46:32 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: add nested resource providers https://review.openstack.org/377138
16:46:33 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: update client to set parent provider https://review.openstack.org/385693
16:46:33 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: adds REST API for nested providers https://review.openstack.org/384807
16:46:35 jaypipes efried: ^^ n-r-p rebased.
16:46:44 jaypipes efried: and addressed your comments. thanks.
16:46:52 efried jaypipes Ack.
16:55:24 efried jaypipes https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384807/ -- placement-api-ref update for ?tree= ?
16:55:44 jaypipes efried: good spot. will add.
16:56:12 efried jaypipes Durn patch-level comments always getting lost.
16:56:43 jaypipes efried: currently pulling in the "lost PS3 changes" in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/516778. sorry about that...
16:56:54 efried Cool
16:57:22 melwitt mdbooth: question in this unit test patch, what's the mis-named field? I didn't notice anything in this change or the one above it https://review.openstack.org/#/c/502126/3//COMMIT_MSG
16:59:10 mdbooth melwitt: IIRC the error was in the subsequent test
16:59:27 mdbooth But it wasn't picked up because it was just a mock
17:00:11 melwitt mdbooth: "subsequent test" meaning the test in the next patch right?
17:01:11 mdbooth melwitt: IIRC, yes?
17:01:27 mdbooth I've slept many times since writing that. Almost certainly yes.
17:01:46 mdbooth It doesn't really matter, though, because exactly which test it is doesn't matter.
17:02:06 mdbooth The point is that the way it was written allowed a test to assume the existence of a field which doesn't exist.
17:03:32 melwitt mdbooth: yeah, I get the point, this commit message is so vague there's no way to see or understand what the problem was, is all
17:03:53 mdbooth The problem is it's a Mock, which means anything goes.
17:04:09 mdbooth It could have been anything. Exactly what it was doesn't really matter.
17:04:11 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: begin refactor AllocCandidates._get_by_filters() https://review.openstack.org/516778
17:04:12 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: build alloc request resources for shared resources https://review.openstack.org/516780
17:04:12 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: build ProviderSummary objects in sep function https://review.openstack.org/516779
17:04:13 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: finish refactor AllocCandidates._get_by_filters() https://review.openstack.org/516782
17:04:13 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: create allocation request for single provider https://review.openstack.org/516781
17:04:14 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: handle traits with sharing providers https://review.openstack.org/517119
17:04:14 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: required traits for no sharing providers https://review.openstack.org/517027
17:04:17 jaypipes efried: k, done ^
17:04:31 efried woot
17:04:32 melwitt mdbooth: yes, I get that. I wanted to see where a "mis-named field" was occuring for my own edification
17:06:26 melwitt I'll pull down the change and revert the bottom patch to see what was going on
17:07:11 mdbooth melwitt: It's really not worth it.
17:07:26 mdbooth melwitt: Couple of reasons:
17:07:39 mdbooth Firstly, it might not even have been that patch as I've reordered them a bunch of times
17:07:39 melwitt well, I want to learn what was going on, so I'm going to do it
17:07:46 melwitt since it doesn't say it in the commit message
17:07:56 mdbooth Secondly, I'll have fixed the issue already, so you won't see a failure regardless
17:08:24 melwitt well, we'll see
17:08:29 mdbooth So in your spelunking you're going to have to look for both the patch affected, and the revision of that patch which contained a bug which was picked up by functional but not unit testing
17:08:53 mdbooth And even when you know, it still doesn't matter, because it's just a general improvement anyway to not use a mock when you can use a real object
17:09:28 mdbooth Absolutely not worth the effort, imho
17:09:28 melwitt no, I'm just going to try reverting the bottom patch and maybe that'll show the problem. if not, then agreed
17:09:41 mdbooth It won't show the problem
17:09:48 mdbooth I'll most definitely have fixed the bug
17:10:26 melwitt that doesn't really make sense, you fixed the bug before changing to a real object?
17:10:42 mdbooth So, I wrote a unit test.
17:10:54 mdbooth In that test I accessed object.fo0
17:11:06 mdbooth The test passed anyway, because object was a mock
17:11:16 mdbooth But functional testing failed because it didn't use a mock
17:11:27 mdbooth I found this and changed the unit test to also not use a mock
17:11:31 mdbooth But I also fixed the bug
17:11:34 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: adds REST API for nested providers https://review.openstack.org/384807
17:11:35 openstackgerrit Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: update client to set parent provider https://review.openstack.org/385693
17:11:51 jaypipes efried: ^ fixed tetsuro's niggle and the tree= param.
17:12:04 efried ack
17:12:07 mdbooth This is a preventative patch to ensure I can't write a unit test with a similar bug in the future
17:12:31 mdbooth We've spent too long on it already, lets just drop it.
17:12:34 melwitt mdbooth: oh, I see
17:23:55 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Numbered groupings to GET /allocation_candidates https://review.openstack.org/514092
17:23:55 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: placement: Parse granular resources & traits https://review.openstack.org/514091
17:23:56 stephenfin dansmith: This looks like something you care about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/517158/
17:40:10 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove cells v2 transition code from update_instance https://review.openstack.org/467382
17:40:10 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Cleanup update_instance cell mapping handling https://review.openstack.org/467380
18:00:08 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Parse granular resources/traits from extra_specs https://review.openstack.org/515151
18:00:09 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Granularize resources_from_{flavor|request_spec} https://review.openstack.org/515223
18:00:10 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: ResourceRequest.to_querystring() https://review.openstack.org/515811
18:00:34 efried jaypipes Both series are now fork-based on the common RequestGroup patch ^ ----^
18:05:27 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: libvirt: do not remove inst_base when volume-backed during resize https://review.openstack.org/517388
18:10:06 jaypipes efried: cool. reviewing now.
18:12:54 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: libvirt: do not remove inst_base when volume-backed during resize https://review.openstack.org/517390

Earlier   Later