| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-03-21 | |||
| 21:44:16 | mriedem | efried: i went through and marked the deferred train blueprints that dont have specs re-approved as pending approval https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/train | |
| 21:44:22 | mriedem | i forgot to do that when deferring from stein | |
| 21:44:31 | mriedem | so we re-approve in LP once the spec is re-approved | |
| 21:44:59 | efried | mriedem: ack, thank you. I can see you saw I approved the quota one. | |
| 21:45:14 | mriedem | yeah, i thought about it because you said on the review: | |
| 21:45:15 | mriedem | "Blueprint in approved state [3] ✔" | |
| 21:45:26 | mriedem | technically the blueprint shouldn't have been approved before the spec | |
| 21:45:31 | mriedem | but i forgot to change those when deferring | |
| 21:47:40 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Trivial: remove unused var from policies.base.py https://review.openstack.org/645380 | |
| 21:49:29 | mriedem | dansmith: i've got this pretty much done, without using a pre-request filter https://review.openstack.org/#/c/645316/ but not sure if i need a blueprint or not, since i'm not adding a configurable filter, it's just going to always be required if you're booting from volume | |
| 21:50:01 | mriedem | cuz it's kind of dumb to even try to boot with a multiattach volume if the scheduler isn't going to filter out hosts that won't support them | |
| 21:51:03 | efried | does that mean they would break further on down the line? | |
| 21:51:13 | efried | I mean, would initial spawn succeed or fail? | |
| 21:51:23 | mriedem | it would fail, | |
| 21:51:25 | mriedem | it's arguably a bug fix | |
| 21:51:49 | mriedem | the bare minimum we do today is check if the computes are new enough, but that was minimum of queens | |
| 21:52:01 | mriedem | that doesn't say bfv wo'nt work for vmware for exapmle | |
| 21:52:17 | mriedem | if you're using vmware exclusively, you'd just have to never enable multiattach volumes on the cinder side via policy | |
| 21:52:30 | mriedem | that's a pain if you're doing multi-hypervisor though | |
| 21:52:55 | mriedem | you'd have to setup aggregates and filter using some flavor extra spec or something | |
| 21:55:38 | mriedem | anywho, idk, it's janky, i suppose you can't reasonably do bfv with vmware and libvirt mixed anyway because you have different volume types, and the libvirt driver isn't going to support vmware volumes and vice versa, so i'm not sure what if anything people do for mixed hypervisor - definitely at least aggregates/AZs | |
| 21:56:39 | sean-k-mooney | efried: ... this change https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/6b844af57eebda6317b1ed3bf5a2f85dcba0bc13 does not work after i fix the lower constrating so im going to have to change it | |
| 21:57:39 | efried | mriedem: I say no bp, bug good, reno optional | |
| 21:58:33 | efried | sean-k-mooney: I'm on board with that. Long as you don't have to go changing the prod code, I say do what you gotta do to get this fixed. | |
| 21:59:38 | sean-k-mooney | im actully not sure why this is even working upstream honestly | |
| 22:00:34 | sean-k-mooney | i think it is depending on something having previously loaded messaging._drivers.impl_fake | |
| 22:00:50 | sean-k-mooney | *imported | |
| 22:02:35 | sean-k-mooney | ya it is | |
| 22:02:38 | sean-k-mooney | >>> import oslo_messaging as messaging | |
| 22:02:40 | sean-k-mooney | >>> messaging._drivers.impl_fake.FakeExchangeManager._exchanges | |
| 22:02:42 | sean-k-mooney | Traceback (most recent call last): | |
| 22:02:47 | sean-k-mooney | AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'impl_fake' | |
| 22:02:47 | sean-k-mooney | File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> | |
| 22:02:48 | sean-k-mooney | >>> import oslo_messaging._drivers.impl_fake | |
| 22:02:50 | sean-k-mooney | >>> messaging._drivers.impl_fake.FakeExchangeManager._exchanges | |
| 22:02:52 | sean-k-mooney | {} | |
| 22:03:40 | sean-k-mooney | so there is a race based on the execution order of the tests | |
| 22:16:14 | openstackgerrit | Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/nova master: ksa auth conf and client for cyborg access https://review.openstack.org/631242 | |
| 22:16:15 | openstackgerrit | Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Create and bind Cyborg ARQs. https://review.openstack.org/631244 | |
| 22:16:15 | openstackgerrit | Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add Cyborg device profile groups to request spec. https://review.openstack.org/631243 | |
| 22:16:16 | openstackgerrit | Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Get resolved Cyborg ARQs and add PCI BDFs to VM's domain XML. https://review.openstack.org/631245 | |
| 22:26:57 | dansmith | mriedem: why is that not in request_filter.py, just without a conf flag? | |
| 22:27:11 | dansmith | that way all these "check a thing about the request and add a trait requirement" things are in one place | |
| 22:27:17 | sean-k-mooney | efried: so just as an fyi we have other dodgy test too that are wrong upstream :( | |
| 22:27:29 | efried | sean-k-mooney: I am not surprised at all. | |
| 22:27:44 | efried | sean-k-mooney: I wonder if we need to file a bug for this. | |
| 22:27:51 | sean-k-mooney | oh we do | |
| 22:28:00 | sean-k-mooney | but that is not what im concerned about | |
| 22:28:20 | sean-k-mooney | the test issue im finding shoudl be broken in other jobs | |
| 22:28:32 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/d2dc7549ce9a0c979fd319cf0332a861b9cd2000/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_serversV21.py#L5129 | |
| 22:28:43 | sean-k-mooney | self.stub_out('uuid.uuid4', lambda: FAKE_UUID) | |
| 22:29:02 | sean-k-mooney | that stubs out uuid.uuid4 to return FAKE_UUID | |
| 22:29:09 | sean-k-mooney | FAKE_UUID is a string | |
| 22:29:31 | sean-k-mooney | oslo messaging does unique_id = uuid.uuid4().hex' | |
| 22:29:44 | sean-k-mooney | .hex is not defiend on a string | |
| 22:29:49 | sean-k-mooney | so it explodes | |
| 22:30:06 | sean-k-mooney | oslo.messaging still does unique_id = uuid.uuid4().hex on master | |
| 22:30:06 | efried | why isn't it exploding now? | |
| 22:31:02 | sean-k-mooney | i think its another race in the tests | |
| 22:32:23 | sean-k-mooney | hum running that test on its own on the py36 target passes but files in lower constratits | |
| 22:34:39 | efried | are you running stop-on-first-failure or do you have a sense of how many tests are broken? | |
| 22:34:47 | sean-k-mooney | ok so my theory is that thing have moved and we are not mocking the right things when usign the older version of oslo.messaging | |
| 22:34:56 | openstackgerrit | Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova master: bdm: store empty object as connection_info by default https://review.openstack.org/645352 | |
| 22:35:49 | sean-k-mooney | i was running all the test but while i was getting many of the test to pass the lower-constratits job was hannging after running for a bit | |
| 22:36:54 | mnaser | mriedem: ^ this worked locally running the unit tests | |
| 22:37:49 | openstackgerrit | Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova master: bdm: store empty object as connection_info by default https://review.openstack.org/645352 | |
| 22:38:17 | cfriesen | mriedem: I assume the vTPM blueprint status change is because it didn't make it in for Stein? | |
| 22:39:09 | sean-k-mooney | cfriesen: mriedem mentioned he set the state back to pending approval for any blupritn that was approved last cycle but needs to have the spec reapproved | |
| 22:39:26 | cfriesen | thx, figured as much | |
| 22:40:31 | mriedem | cfriesen: right, re-propose the spec for train | |
| 22:40:38 | mriedem | i forgot to switch the bp status when deferring | |
| 22:40:55 | mriedem | mnaser: want to report a bug for this? | |
| 22:45:17 | mnaser | mriedem: oh dang i had one but i didnt add closes-bug | |
| 22:45:35 | openstackgerrit | Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova master: bdm: store empty object as connection_info by default https://review.openstack.org/645352 | |
| 22:46:02 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: make lower-constratints env use lower-constratins https://review.openstack.org/645392 | |
| 22:46:19 | mnaser | ok just noticed your reviews too ill try to address them after foodz | |
| 22:46:26 | sean-k-mooney | im going to keep working on ^ | |
| 22:46:55 | efried | sean-k-mooney: Thanks for doing that. | |
| 22:47:38 | mriedem | mnaser: ok i left some comments in PS3, not really worth -1ing over though | |
| 22:48:28 | sean-k-mooney | efried: i can fix the FAKE_UUID issue but i still suspect that our mocking is wrong in some of the tests and code that should not be run actully is being run | |
| 22:48:40 | mriedem | dansmith: it's not a request filter because the request spec doesn't store the bdms, and during server create the bdms won't have multiattach information in them anyway, so to figure it out, i'd have to, within the filter, pull the list of bdms for the instance and for all with a volume_id, query cinder to figure out if the volume is multiattach or not | |
| 22:48:55 | sean-k-mooney | if the lower constraitn job explodes or times out then that is likely why | |
| 22:49:26 | mriedem | if we actually had a BDM.multiattach field, that could maybe work - but we'd still have to get the bdms during scheduling...which might suck | |
| 22:56:13 | dansmith | mriedem_afk: okay, seemed like it was just examining the reqspec to determine what to do, which is exactly like the other filters, but I admittedly was skimming | |
| 22:56:18 | dansmith | can look again tomorrow | |
| 23:32:49 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem_afk: dansmith melwitt i have been talking to erric for the last hour or two about the fact our lower constrats job has been broken since we created it | |
| 23:34:13 | sean-k-mooney | im assuming we are not going to fix this in RC1 i can likely have it fixed tomorow or early next week once i figure out where we are not mocking the rpc bus in some test but is this something we would fix in RC2 or in train? | |
| 23:34:43 | sean-k-mooney | i assume we would want to fix lower constraitn on the stable branches too? | |
| 23:34:52 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/645392/1 | |
| 23:36:58 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: I think you'll want to open a bug for that, yeah? | |
| 23:37:22 | sean-k-mooney | ya i have left a todo in the review for that | |
| 23:37:34 | sean-k-mooney | but ill do it when i start on this again tomorow | |
| 23:37:34 | melwitt | I'm not sure this is an RC thing because it's our test job not working, not a user deliverable? | |
| 23:37:58 | sean-k-mooney | true but the minium requirement we had listed were wrong | |
| 23:38:13 | melwitt | and then yes, I think we'd want to fix it on stable too. probably not pike since it's bound for EM in the next few weeks | |
| 23:38:33 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: oh, I see. yeah, so maybe it would be RC | |
| 23:39:17 | sean-k-mooney | lower-constrtis has only been a thing since queens i think so its only the last 2 release + stien | |
| 23:39:22 | melwitt | RC2, that is. I'll add it to the etherpad | |
| 23:40:41 | sean-k-mooney | ya its not rc1 in anycase. but cool ill keep workign on this again tomorow | |
| 23:42:47 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: sounds good, thank you | |