| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-11 | |||
| 15:55:11 | mriedem | mikal: i'm sure this pains you, but apparently the nova-net refactoring broke nova-lxd https://review.openstack.org/#/c/559190/ which apparently also broke openstack-ansible https://review.openstack.org/#/c/559354/ | |
| 15:55:13 | mriedem | :( | |
| 15:57:11 | jaypipes | tssurya: you need any assistance on writing the func test asked for by dansmith on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554920/? | |
| 15:57:39 | melwitt | dansmith: for the runways end dates, were you thinking they include the end date? that is, would we remove things *on* the end date or the day after? I was thinking the day after | |
| 15:57:54 | tssurya | jaypipes: I have been working on it for sometime with not much luck | |
| 15:58:04 | dansmith | melwitt: shrug, probably EOD on the day yeah | |
| 15:58:05 | dansmith | which is today I know | |
| 15:58:10 | jaypipes | tssurya: feel free to push what you've got and I can help out. | |
| 15:58:14 | tssurya | jaypipes : so if you have some time, help appreciated | |
| 15:58:18 | jaypipes | np | |
| 15:58:37 | melwitt | dansmith: yeah, okay. I was thinking similar, that the end date should include that day. I'll move things after EOD | |
| 15:58:55 | dansmith | melwitt: your EOD is pretty late, so I think that'll work nice | |
| 15:59:04 | melwitt | agreed | |
| 16:09:32 | mriedem | ooo i broke nova-lxd too https://review.openstack.org/#/q/I751fcb7532679905c4279744919c6cce84a11eb4 | |
| 16:10:44 | mriedem | odyssey4me: that's awesome that nova can unwittingly break nova-lxd and other out of tree virt drivers, which then in turn breaks OSA | |
| 16:11:10 | mriedem | odyssey4me: i'm sort of surprised that OSA's voting jobs don't exclude out of tree drivers | |
| 16:11:15 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: isnt there a thirdpart ci for nova-lxd | |
| 16:11:26 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: no, nova-lxd is not in tree | |
| 16:12:17 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: yes but i would have expected there to be a non gating thrid party ci to test it even when its out of tree | |
| 16:12:33 | mriedem | why would we care? | |
| 16:12:45 | mriedem | if you're out of tree, you're out of tree, and we don't block in-tree changes because of that | |
| 16:12:57 | mriedem | best we do at times is put something in the ML as a heads up for known internal interface changes | |
| 16:14:55 | bauzas | that remembers me some pg discussion... | |
| 16:14:58 | sean-k-mooney | not run by nova run by the maintiners of nova-lxd e.g. canonical | |
| 16:15:17 | bauzas | which I think we cleary made the statement that non-supported things for a project are potentially subject to break | |
| 16:15:32 | mriedem | bauzas: we have jobs we can run for pg testing if we ant | |
| 16:15:33 | mriedem | *want | |
| 16:15:34 | bauzas | hence other projects gating on that project shouldn't really support that too | |
| 16:15:36 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: oh im not expecting nova to block in tree change i just expcting that nova-lxd team could benifit form know that its broken | |
| 16:15:39 | mriedem | there is a neutron job in the experimental queue that runs with pg | |
| 16:16:09 | mriedem | sean-k-mooney: nova-lxd team can listen on nova changes, run jobs and post results for failures somewhere if they want to detect them early | |
| 16:17:06 | bauzas | mriedem: I'm not saying it's impossible | |
| 16:17:16 | bauzas | mriedem: just that we broke ceilometer once | |
| 16:17:36 | bauzas | because ceilo was gating something we don't test | |
| 16:17:44 | mriedem | sure, i'm sure ceilometer broke us once indirectly too when they were part of tempest, 3 years ago | |
| 16:18:14 | bauzas | and the result was like a best-effort fix and a summit discussion that led to "come and help us make pg first-grade if your production runs on something we don't test" | |
| 16:18:34 | mriedem | there is nothing 2nd grade about pg wrt nova | |
| 16:18:51 | bauzas | I think we're diverting anyway | |
| 16:19:18 | bauzas | I just tried to explain that I feel you shouldn't blame yourself for breaking ansible if they gate on something we don't test | |
| 16:19:26 | dansmith | mriedem: this seems like a legit "stop the bleeding" patch for stable.. I saw you reviewed it once, but.. are you cool with it? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543569 | |
| 16:19:34 | bauzas | we can certainly fix that tho | |
| 16:19:37 | mriedem | bauzas: i don't really blame myself :) | |
| 16:19:41 | sahid | mriedem: if you have a moment that one looks ready and important enough for some use-cases https://review.openstack.org/#/c/553072/ | |
| 16:19:44 | mriedem | sucks for odyssey4me though | |
| 16:20:05 | bauzas | mriedem: I agree, and that requires a fix | |
| 16:20:05 | mriedem | jesus, did the red hat team bug meeting just end? | |
| 16:20:22 | bauzas | mriedem: nah, not bugs | |
| 16:20:35 | bauzas | but yes, meeting ended | |
| 16:21:23 | mriedem | dansmith: i've just been putting off going through it again because it's hairy on stable | |
| 16:21:31 | mriedem | i'm not opposed to it no | |
| 16:21:33 | dansmith | it's big, | |
| 16:21:37 | dansmith | but it doesn't seem that hairy | |
| 16:21:56 | mriedem | the fact it was re-introducing a regression in the earlier PS indicates to me it's hairy | |
| 16:22:05 | dansmith | it's checking a thing and raising an exception to avoid you killing data puppies | |
| 16:22:29 | dansmith | okay I guess I don't quite know what that means | |
| 16:22:55 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543569/1/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py@1216 | |
| 16:23:03 | mriedem | meaning it's easy to break stuff | |
| 16:23:34 | dansmith | ah I see | |
| 16:23:42 | mriedem | anyway, i told lyarwood i'd go through it again last week and forgot | |
| 16:23:44 | dansmith | weyall.. data corruption seems more bad | |
| 16:23:55 | mriedem | and with no more eol, we have time to fix it if breaks something | |
| 16:24:16 | dansmith | by "time" you mean "forever and ever" right? | |
| 16:24:31 | odyssey4me | mriedem eh? what sucks for me? :) | |
| 16:35:06 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: move version to string in utils https://review.openstack.org/560455 | |
| 16:35:38 | mriedem | dansmith: i'll trade you https://review.openstack.org/#/c/536722/ | |
| 16:36:08 | dansmith | mriedem: seems a little lopsided | |
| 16:39:33 | mriedem | sahid: comments inline | |
| 16:41:43 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Expose shutdown retry interval as config setting https://review.openstack.org/552483 | |
| 16:44:26 | dansmith | mriedem: you okay with this? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/484997/14/nova/conf/libvirt.py | |
| 16:44:42 | dansmith | I suggested something similar, but not exactly this.. although this works and is easier than what I suggested | |
| 16:44:54 | dansmith | it gets us config load-time verification of that parameter | |
| 16:44:57 | dansmith | instead of at runtime | |
| 16:45:12 | dansmith | but I don't think we have anywhere else that we subclass an opt (even though that's suggested by the oslo docs AFAICT) | |
| 16:45:46 | mriedem | you just pulled me out of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/543569/ | |
| 16:46:05 | dansmith | it needs only a glance | |
| 16:46:22 | mriedem | so does https://review.openstack.org/#/c/560454/ | |
| 16:47:18 | mriedem | agree with load-time config validation | |
| 16:47:44 | mriedem | wouldn't it be simple to do a subclass inline in that module | |
| 16:47:45 | mriedem | ? | |
| 16:49:05 | dansmith | mriedem: wrong link? | |
| 16:50:53 | mriedem | no, i asked for a review on that earlier - since it's kicking things out of CI on master | |
| 16:51:28 | dansmith | I'm confused | |
| 16:51:56 | dansmith | mriedem: melwitt tssurya: do we need a cells meeting today? I have nothing new | |
| 16:51:58 | mriedem | you asked me to review lee's thing, then while i was doing that, you asked me to look at sahid's thing, so in kind i threw that bug fix at you while you were reviewing sahid's thing :) | |
| 16:52:06 | dansmith | and I reviewed some of tssurya's patches to make myself feel better this morning | |
| 16:52:16 | mriedem | i dont think i have anything | |
| 16:52:24 | tssurya | me niether | |
| 16:52:26 | melwitt | I was just about to ask that. I don't think I have anything either | |
| 16:52:33 | tssurya | dansmith: thanks for the reviews | |
| 16:52:46 | mriedem | i reviewed tssurya's patch to delete RPs and host mappings when we delete compute services but my comments weren't controversial | |
| 16:52:51 | dansmith | sweet, cancelled thusly | |
| 16:53:52 | tssurya | jaypipes: I am still working on the func test, haven't got very far (dangling between understanding service fixtures) , however I will try again tomorrow and ping you if it becomes too much for me | |
| 16:54:23 | mriedem | tssurya: i can probably help with that, | |
| 16:54:40 | mriedem | could be a patch before yours in the series to show that we didn't delete HMs and RPs when we deleted a compute service, and then yours could build on top to assert that we do | |
| 16:55:10 | dansmith | yeah I like that | |
| 16:55:18 | dansmith | I would call that "mriedem style" | |
| 16:55:20 | mriedem | it would also keep the fix patch smaller | |
| 16:55:26 | mriedem | like gangham style? | |
| 16:55:28 | imacdonn | I can certainly related to getting all tangled up in fixtures :/ | |
| 16:55:35 | imacdonn | relate* | |