| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-04 | |||
| 18:34:12 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Move pypowervm requirement to 1.1.12 https://review.openstack.org/558254 | |
| 18:34:12 | dansmith | which shouldn't be **dict, IMHO | |
| 18:34:21 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Remove a outdated warning https://review.openstack.org/557898 | |
| 18:34:49 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: on the field change, | |
| 18:34:54 | sean-k-mooney | well the ** was because i originally used sed for the conversion | |
| 18:35:00 | dansmith | uh huh :) | |
| 18:35:32 | dansmith | you need to add this as a spec_obj field, and yes, I would expect to see at least a test that uses the old dict-y spec field with the rest of the code | |
| 18:36:07 | sean-k-mooney | im going to get rid of the ** but im just wonding if i should get rid of all uses of spec=[{}] and move them to spec_objs=[objects] | |
| 18:36:10 | dansmith | I would expect to make all the existing tests use the object, and add one more new test that just makes sure something basic still works if you only have the dict field set | |
| 18:36:17 | cdent | sean-k-mooney, jaypipes (and dansmith and cfriesen_ you probably know this too): On jay's spec about cpu resource tracking ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/555081/ ) the existing situation is that any given host can only be shared or dedicated, but not mixed? Is that just an OpenStack/Nova limitation, or is it also a limitation in libvirt/KVM? | |
| 18:36:34 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: yeah, except for the new test to validate the old dict path | |
| 18:36:51 | dansmith | cdent: just nova AFAIK | |
| 18:37:24 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: ok ill convert them all to use objects like i had started and then add in test just for the old path thanks. | |
| 18:37:32 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: yup | |
| 18:37:38 | cdent | so if we get nova sorted (via jay's ideas) we'll need to cook some code in the virtdriver, but not deeper in the stack? cool. | |
| 18:38:30 | sean-k-mooney | cdent: am nova will happliy allow a mixed host but it is not preventing the shared cpus from stomping over the pinned ones today. so we use host aggregates to seperate them | |
| 18:39:02 | cdent | sean-k-mooney: ah, okah, thanks | |
| 18:39:36 | dansmith | right, thatg | |
| 18:41:11 | melwitt | bhagyashris: I have a question about your spec on deleteBackups. my assumption has been that you have users that are currently using rotation '0' to purge backups as a side effect. is that correct? | |
| 18:41:59 | melwitt | *using rotation '0' to the createBackup API | |
| 19:07:10 | mriedem | anyone know the tl;dr on the 'a plan to stop syncing requirements into projects' thread? | |
| 19:07:20 | mriedem | sounds like requirements.txt changes are now all done manually? | |
| 19:08:48 | dansmith | from the oslo room ptg, | |
| 19:09:14 | dansmith | I think they were saying that they would only sync (or manually sync) requirements when the minimum was being raised past what the project has listed | |
| 19:09:20 | dansmith | instead of just always syncing always | |
| 19:09:45 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: i get why we might want to do this to prevent raising minimums higher then needed but i think we are also losing that auto blacklisting of specific versions e.g. x>1.0,x!=1.1 | |
| 19:09:48 | dansmith | so that things like swift can continue supporting the older versions of some libraries they have because of workarounds or lack of actual requirements for the newer one | |
| 19:10:23 | mriedem | i just see that it's throwing people off e.g. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554679/ | |
| 19:11:36 | mriedem | and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/558254/ | |
| 19:11:37 | dansmith | just yet another change in process | |
| 19:11:42 | mriedem | which is actually < than what's in g-r | |
| 19:11:44 | openstackgerrit | Tyler Blakeslee proposed openstack/nova master: Add __repr__ for NovaException https://review.openstack.org/555812 | |
| 19:11:52 | sean-k-mooney | oh so in the scale io case they had expect the version bump but the proposal bot is not making it | |
| 19:12:05 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: [placement] api-ref: Fix parameters https://review.openstack.org/558142 | |
| 19:12:18 | mriedem | i'm not sure why we'd even have g-r then | |
| 19:12:50 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: i gues g-r keeps the minium for all pojects and nova requirments.txt has minium for nova | |
| 19:13:28 | cdent | mriedem: upper constraints remains the one true thing, even without a globally sync requirements.txt, maybe? | |
| 19:13:40 | mriedem | which means we could bump our minimum required version in nova for a library, but not care about bumping it in g-r | |
| 19:13:57 | sean-k-mooney | so if you dont deploy something that need the newer requirement you can still use version below g-r. that said our gate jobs always run with whatever is allowed by u-c | |
| 19:13:57 | dansmith | we still have to be below u-c | |
| 19:14:11 | mriedem | u-c bumps are automated | |
| 19:14:14 | mriedem | and merged in batches | |
| 19:14:25 | openstackgerrit | Eric Young proposed openstack/nova master: Support extending attached ScaleIO volumes https://review.openstack.org/554679 | |
| 19:14:31 | dansmith | my feeling is that we'll still have some things where you can't actually use nova at the version pinned by cinder for a given thing | |
| 19:15:03 | mriedem | yeah. forget i asked. i need to find a hole to put my head. | |
| 19:15:57 | mriedem | the foot of snow we got yesterday doesn't help | |
| 19:16:15 | dansmith | better you than me | |
| 19:19:17 | kashyap | [nag] Since I'm awake at this random hour in front of the screen, might as well point out this if you are looking for something to +A: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/534384/ | |
| 19:19:27 | kashyap | It already has a +2 | |
| 19:20:29 | smcginnis | mriedem: I don't think g-r matters anymore and is probably going away at some point. | |
| 19:20:40 | smcginnis | Things just need to be between lower-constraint and upper-constraint. | |
| 19:21:52 | sean-k-mooney | smcginnis: isnt g-r the lower-constraint | |
| 19:22:08 | sean-k-mooney | smcginnis: or at least openstack wide lower-constraint | |
| 19:22:11 | smcginnis | sean-k-mooney: No, there is a new lower-constraint.txt file. | |
| 19:22:25 | smcginnis | sean-k-mooney: Well, I guess you could call that the new g-r. | |
| 19:23:01 | smcginnis | It's slightly different though: https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/master/lower-constraints.txt | |
| 19:23:13 | sean-k-mooney | smcginnis: oh ok is that updated automatically some how? just not sure what the delta is between it and g-r | |
| 19:23:36 | sean-k-mooney | oh its expcitly === with no ranges | |
| 19:24:12 | smcginnis | Right. It's saying "the minimum required is exactly this" rather than "it needs to be above this version, but not this one, etc." | |
| 19:24:15 | sean-k-mooney | so in theroy we could use it to test with minium supported version | |
| 19:24:27 | smcginnis | sean-k-mooney: Yep, I think that's the plan. | |
| 19:25:21 | smcginnis | It's a bit of a long read, but Doug wrote out the whole plan here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-March/128352.html | |
| 19:26:29 | sean-k-mooney | smcginnis: oh good to know. i basically assume that since we only tested with what upperconstraties allowed that anything lower might work but not worth the heart ache of finding out | |
| 19:27:09 | smcginnis | sean-k-mooney: Hah, yeah. And I think in a lot of cases, our lower bound didn't/doesn't accurately reflect what really is the minimum required. | |
| 19:27:18 | smcginnis | This makes it plausible to have a test that can verify that. | |
| 19:28:16 | sean-k-mooney | smcginnis: well the distros. esspcially centos et al would be happy with knowing that a minium is actully checked before they start intergrating | |
| 19:28:28 | sean-k-mooney | ill give the ml post a read thanks | |
| 19:28:54 | smcginnis | sean-k-mooney: Pour yourselve a nice cup of tea first - it will take a while. ;) | |
| 19:52:45 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Block swapping to an encrypted volume when using QEMU to decrypt https://review.openstack.org/544238 | |
| 19:59:44 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Move test_report_client out of placement namespace https://review.openstack.org/558911 | |
| 20:20:03 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Fix incorrect exception import https://review.openstack.org/558916 | |
| 20:20:35 | cdent | efried, mriedem, dansmith : that's ^ a fun little bug fix that would be nice to have | |
| 20:24:06 | openstackgerrit | Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: Add --enable and --disable options to nova-manage update_cell https://review.openstack.org/555416 | |
| 20:24:57 | mriedem | cdent: we can't even have a simple unit test for that if gabbi won't cover it? | |
| 20:25:35 | cdent | mriedem: we can have a unit test for it but it would be...very mocky | |
| 20:25:49 | mriedem | that's fine, it's testing error handling | |
| 20:25:52 | melwitt | yeah, I was about to ask that. I'm not seeing unit tests in the tree for the aggregate handler, guess there hasn't been need of one yet | |
| 20:26:12 | cdent | melwitt, mriedem : as a general rule we haven't done unit tests for the handler code | |
| 20:26:16 | melwitt | that is, gabbit tests cover most of it | |
| 20:26:20 | melwitt | gabbi | |
| 20:26:22 | mriedem | cdent: i know | |
| 20:26:25 | mriedem | but... | |
| 20:26:30 | mriedem | clearly there is a need for it in some cases | |
| 20:26:36 | melwitt | aye | |
| 20:26:49 | cdent | I'm not saying I'm agin it, just that it hasn't happened yet | |
| 20:27:02 | mriedem | you can be a trailblazer here | |
| 20:27:19 | cdent | I was hoping to go to sleep instead | |
| 20:27:30 | mriedem | blaze that treasure trail in the morning | |
| 20:27:44 | mriedem | or lose sleep over it tonight :) | |
| 20:28:04 | cdent | I will lose sleep over trying to generate caring | |
| 20:29:00 | cdent | mriedem: so I can both think about it and not think about it, what is that you're hoping for here? | |
| 20:29:43 | mriedem | i'm -1 without a unit test | |
| 20:29:54 | mriedem | which can be dealt with whenever you feel like it i guess | |
| 20:30:00 | cdent | a test that confirms that the handler raises a 409 when it seens a ConcurrentUpdate, or that a ConcurrentUpdate happens when there is an increment generation failure that casues a ConcurrentUpdate | |
| 20:30:18 | mriedem | i'm fine with the former | |
| 20:30:20 | mriedem | seems easy enough | |
| 20:30:25 | cdent | one of the reasons we haven't done it in the past is because the answer to that ^ is unclear | |
| 20:30:35 | melwitt | +1 on the former | |
| 20:30:49 | mriedem | making sure we don't spew 500 out of the REST API is a simple enough thing to say is a good test | |
| 20:31:03 | cdent | hmmm. Would that even have caught this particular problem? | |