| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-10-18 | |||
| 12:34:39 | sean-k-mooney | TENANTS and SERVERS are not paramaters to the function | |
| 12:34:41 | pooja_jadhav | correct? | |
| 12:34:43 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 12:35:07 | pooja_jadhav | but when I see the instanceList, in that I can see 20 instances | |
| 12:35:25 | pooja_jadhav | 1 instance is repeating again (twice) | |
| 12:35:37 | pooja_jadhav | for the existing test cases only | |
| 12:36:04 | sean-k-mooney | can yo point me to a failing test? | |
| 12:36:18 | pooja_jadhav | test is not failing right now | |
| 12:36:36 | pooja_jadhav | actually, I am writting new test for simple tenant usage api for my fix | |
| 12:36:59 | pooja_jadhav | at that time, I was able to see this behaviour | |
| 12:38:07 | pooja_jadhav | ideally, if instance_list is giving 2 instances then for simple tenant usage should give usages for 2 instances only. | |
| 12:38:21 | sean-k-mooney | pooja_jadhav: can you push the fialing test case it would be eaier to debug it with logs | |
| 12:38:49 | pooja_jadhav | test is not failing | |
| 12:39:17 | pooja_jadhav | mriedem ^^ | |
| 12:39:20 | sean-k-mooney | yes but it would be useful if i could see how you were using this fucntion | |
| 12:39:29 | sean-k-mooney | can you at leat past bin it somehwere | |
| 12:39:34 | pooja_jadhav | yes | |
| 12:40:13 | sean-k-mooney | fake_get_active_by_window_joined intally at least looks correct. | |
| 12:40:26 | sean-k-mooney | im wondering are you calling https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_simple_tenant_usage.py#L116-L132 somehow? | |
| 12:41:37 | pooja_jadhav | http://paste.openstack.org/show/732423/ | |
| 12:42:44 | pooja_jadhav | I am using fake_get_active_by_window_joined() only not fake_get_active_deleted_flavorless() | |
| 12:49:26 | sean-k-mooney | pooja_jadhav: why are you patching a test function | |
| 12:49:58 | pooja_jadhav | means? | |
| 12:50:16 | pooja_jadhav | I am trying to add new test | |
| 12:50:37 | sean-k-mooney | sorry you are patching get_active_by_window_joined not fake_get_active_by_window_joined | |
| 12:50:52 | pooja_jadhav | hmm | |
| 12:51:54 | pooja_jadhav | I have mock this get_active_by_window_joined() and return_value set list of 2 instances (1 BFV and other is normal instance). | |
| 12:52:51 | pooja_jadhav | In the simple tenant usage API, in the instance_list I can see 4 instances and same in response dict after get API as well | |
| 12:52:53 | sean-k-mooney | yes so this is not using fake_get_active_by_window_joined at all | |
| 12:53:14 | pooja_jadhav | yes | |
| 12:54:02 | sean-k-mooney | what do you mean by the simple tenant api you can see 4 instances. you are working on unit test currectly so how can you see 4 instance when you dont have openstack running | |
| 12:54:52 | pooja_jadhav | in the unit test, I am calling index method | |
| 12:55:03 | pooja_jadhav | res_dict = self.controller.index(req) | |
| 12:58:18 | sean-k-mooney | right but why are you not mocking out _tenant_usages_for_period and the view builder funcitons | |
| 12:59:29 | sean-k-mooney | if you are wringing a unit test for index you should not be calling https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/simple_tenant_usage.py#L313 or https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/simple_tenant_usage.py#L322 within the test | |
| 12:59:34 | pooja_jadhav | but for existing tests as well, they are moacking these above functions | |
| 13:02:18 | sean-k-mooney | that is true that does not mean the exisiting test are well written. | |
| 13:06:30 | sean-k-mooney | pooja_jadhav: can you try using a patch decorator syntax instead of the with condetex manager | |
| 13:07:16 | sean-k-mooney | so precreate the expected dict before the test fuction and use @mock.patch('nova.objects.InstanceList.get_active_by_window_joined', expceted dicts) | |
| 13:08:07 | sean-k-mooney | actully never mind it should be identical | |
| 13:13:02 | sean-k-mooney | pooja_jadhav: am i dont have time to dig into this more right now sorry. | |
| 13:13:17 | pooja_jadhav | np | |
| 13:13:31 | pooja_jadhav | i will dig out :) | |
| 13:13:37 | pooja_jadhav | thanks for ur time | |
| 13:22:19 | mriedem | cfriesen: i have a buttload of questions in the tpm spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/571111/ | |
| 13:23:00 | mriedem | mmedvede: any idea if emulated tpm is supported on pkvm? https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#elementsTpm | |
| 13:23:10 | mriedem | tonyb: ^ | |
| 13:23:24 | sean-k-mooney | moshele: is the ci testing os-vif broken http://13.74.249.42/16/610916/4/check-os-vif/OVS_HW_offload/1c9af37/logs/n-cpu.service.log.gz | |
| 13:24:42 | sean-k-mooney | moshele: the failures seam to be related to looking up the represntors | |
| 13:24:57 | moshele | sean-k-mooney: we has some environment issues with, but it should be working now | |
| 13:25:14 | moshele | lennyb: right ^ | |
| 13:26:36 | sean-k-mooney | i have approved https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611017 which is makeing a minior change to the unitiest code only and i was seeing this error. | |
| 13:27:24 | sean-k-mooney | the test change cannont cause this faiure so i am assuming this is an ci env issue. | |
| 13:29:13 | moshele | sean-k-mooney: I run recheck on the mellanox ci just to make sure it is working, if not I will talk to lennyb to fix it | |
| 13:30:38 | sean-k-mooney | moshele: cool i just wanted to reach out as i do check the result but i also dont block patches if the melonox ci fails and i can determin the failure was unrelated to the current patch as it is in this case | |
| 13:34:32 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref: 'vcpus_total' doesn't reflect overcommit ratio https://review.openstack.org/611604 | |
| 13:36:32 | stephenfin | jaypipes, mriedem: Would it ever make sense to remove the vcpus_used, vcpus_total from the hypervisor APIs, given that placement can do this stuff for us now? They're very misleading ^ | |
| 13:38:52 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Update pypi url to new url https://review.openstack.org/582092 | |
| 13:40:01 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/nova master: Use assertRegex instead of assertRegexpMatches https://review.openstack.org/611608 | |
| 13:43:21 | lennyb | moshele, sean-k-mooney I am rechecking the issue | |
| 13:45:04 | mriedem | stephenfin: we've talked about it, and at the last ptg too | |
| 13:45:10 | mriedem | or just have that API proxy to placement | |
| 13:47:41 | stephenfin | mriedem: This is the "What does shared storage provider support in nova give us? What does it fix?" section, I assume? | |
| 13:48:37 | mriedem | yes | |
| 13:49:05 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: perhaps. we did discuss it in the context of the local_gb field but we also disucssed should we just remove the hypervior api or as mriedem said make be a proxy to the relevent data from plancement in the future | |
| 13:49:41 | stephenfin | My next question was "I thought we don't do proxies any more", but I do vaguely recall a discussion about how this was special. Maybe that was something else though. Is it special? | |
| 13:50:53 | mriedem | it's definitely low priority | |
| 13:51:06 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: i would personally prefer to deprecate, document how to query placement for the same infor and remove but is it special. i am sure it is to somemone but i dont think its a vital api | |
| 13:51:25 | mriedem | dansmith: your +W awaits https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611084/ | |
| 13:51:52 | dansmith | mriedem: my +W waits for no man | |
| 13:52:48 | stephenfin | mriedem: ack, just curious after awaugama's struggles yesterday | |
| 13:52:59 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: by the way for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611604 that is expected | |
| 13:53:36 | mriedem | stephenfin: so what's the tl;dr on that? the vcpus_used/total was a red herring? | |
| 13:53:41 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Expected but not documented, from what I could see. Best to document these things | |
| 13:54:23 | stephenfin | mriedem: I actually don't know. I haven't checked in with him yet today. awaugama? | |
| 13:54:27 | sean-k-mooney | that the field that report how many hypervior cpus you have is not multipled by an over commit | |
| 13:55:08 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Yeah, I know. That's why I'm seeking to explicitly call it out :) | |
| 13:55:40 | stephenfin | (I didn't know that before yesterday as it doesn't matter for dedicated cores) | |
| 13:56:20 | awaugama | mriedem, stephenfin: waiting to sync with bauzas to go over it | |
| 13:56:33 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: but you are adding noise... fine but a more meaningful addtion would be to expcitly point or this corresponds to the number of phyical threads availbale on the hyperviors | |
| 13:58:49 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Those would make for some good review comments :) | |
| 13:59:23 | mriedem | i left some | |
| 13:59:51 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: i was trying not to have to leave a -1 but ok ill add them | |
| 14:00:15 | mriedem | nova meeting time | |
| 14:00:16 | gibi | nova meeting is starting in #openstack-meeting | |
| 14:01:27 | bauzas | awaugama: sorry, I'm swamped under multiple internal issues | |
| 14:01:43 | awaugama | bauzas, all good. ping me when you've got a chance | |
| 14:02:05 | bauzas | well, I thought I'd have a chance by this morning but then I got a meeting | |
| 14:02:28 | bauzas | live my life | |
| 14:12:44 | dansmith | mriedem, tssurya: just FYI, I figured out the big weird functional test failure that was hitting the down cell series | |
| 14:12:56 | dansmith | it's in our fixture, luckily, but I need to figure out how to fix it in a way that isn't terrible | |
| 14:13:17 | tssurya | dansmith: you did ?! | |
| 14:13:22 | dansmith | tssurya: yeah | |
| 14:13:31 | dansmith | tssurya: took me a while because I'm slow | |
| 14:13:37 | mriedem | slow but powerful | |
| 14:13:50 | tssurya | I couldn't.. have been at it for some time, then I got busy with some other stuff downstream | |
| 14:13:54 | mriedem | that was our AS400 build process name when i started at ibm... | |
| 14:13:54 | dansmith | we're racing to double-lock a lock | |
| 14:14:21 | dansmith | so I need to make that safe for recursion somehow | |
| 14:16:38 | tssurya | just to be sure dansmith, you are talking abotu these tests right ? http://logs.openstack.org/58/591658/10/check/nova-tox-functional-py35/ab65888/testr_results.html.gz | |