| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-03-21 | |||
| 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 | |
| 23:46:01 | sean-k-mooney | crap.. this same issue is in a bunch of repos | |
| 23:46:14 | sean-k-mooney | http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=install_command%20%3D%20pip%20install%20-c%7Benv%3AUPPER_CONSTRAINTS_FILE%3A&i=nope&files=&repos= | |
| 23:46:32 | sean-k-mooney | i should also send a mail to the list about this tomorow | |
| 23:50:08 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: ++ good idea | |
| 23:50:48 | sean-k-mooney | does this fall under the remite or the requireemtn team, qa team or relase team. | |
| 23:51:14 | sean-k-mooney | i think its the same people more or less on all of them but ill chat to them on irc too | |
| 23:52:59 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: I would think #openstack-requirements | |
| 23:58:15 | sean-k-mooney | ya so apparently lower-constraints is not actully requried by the PTI which explaing why many of the proejct with the prolematic install command have not seen this issue as they are not testing with lower constratints | |
| #openstack-nova - 2019-03-22 | |||
| 00:00:25 | sean-k-mooney | placement is broken by this however as are a few other i have seen so far | |
| 00:00:46 | sean-k-mooney | oh actully no playment has the fix | |
| 00:02:30 | smcginnis | sean-k-mooney: What is the issue with the codesearch and upper constraints? | |
| 00:02:41 | smcginnis | Nearly every repo should have that. | |
| 00:03:34 | sean-k-mooney | smcginnis: yes but if you have that and you have a lower-constrats tox env and dont overwrive the install_command the the lower-constratis env uses upper-constratits | |
| 00:04:49 | sean-k-mooney | so novas lower-constraints job is broken as is congresses git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/congress/tree/tox.ini | |
| 00:05:18 | sean-k-mooney | and tripleo-validations | |
| 00:05:44 | sean-k-mooney | there are not that many project that actully have a lower-constraints tox env | |
| 00:06:24 | smcginnis | Really? Most should have that. It was one of those big blasts out to update the world. | |
| 00:06:27 | smcginnis | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:requirements-stop-syncing+(status:open+OR+status:merged) | |
| 00:06:59 | smcginnis | Congress does. At the bottom of tox.ini | |
| 00:07:11 | sean-k-mooney | yes i know | |
| 00:07:27 | smcginnis | https://opendev.org/openstack/congress/src/branch/master/tox.ini#L103-L108 | |
| 00:07:42 | sean-k-mooney | yes but its broken | |
| 00:07:53 | sean-k-mooney | https://opendev.org/openstack/congress/src/branch/master/tox.ini#L9 | |
| 00:08:24 | sean-k-mooney | that install command means its lower-constrtis is actully installing the upper-constrats instead | |
| 00:09:44 | smcginnis | I believe with the deps set there, that makes sure it also uses the lower-constraints.txt | |
| 00:10:10 | sean-k-mooney | smcginnis: it does not | |
| 00:10:12 | smcginnis | At least it has been working that way for nearly a year now. | |
| 00:10:19 | smcginnis | Where do you see it not? | |
| 00:10:45 | sean-k-mooney | in the output of the gate logs | |
| 00:10:53 | sean-k-mooney | give me a sec an ill grab some | |
| 00:12:16 | sean-k-mooney | so this is a random nova change | |
| 00:12:18 | sean-k-mooney | http://logs.openstack.org/52/626952/12/check/openstack-tox-lower-constraints/7bc660b/tox/lower-constraints-1.log | |
| 00:12:40 | sean-k-mooney | if you scroll to the end you will see its installing zVMCloudConnector-1.4.0 | |
| 00:12:51 | sean-k-mooney | the lower-constrating is 1.1.1 | |
| 00:14:10 | sean-k-mooney | the lower constrait of psycopg2 is 2.6.8 its using psycopg2-2.7.7 | |
| 00:16:37 | sean-k-mooney | doing the same with congress | |
| 00:16:39 | sean-k-mooney | http://logs.openstack.org/13/643113/1/check/openstack-tox-lower-constraints/b00ac73/tox/lower-constraints-1.log | |
| 00:17:06 | sean-k-mooney | that job used testtools-2.3.0 | |
| 00:17:17 | sean-k-mooney | there lower-constrating is 2.2.0 https://github.com/openstack/congress/blob/master/lower-constraints.txt#L139 | |
| 00:17:54 | smcginnis | Hmm, this had been working fine. I wonder if a tox upgrade or something like that has caused a change in behavior. | |
| 00:18:22 | sean-k-mooney | smcginnis: im not sure if it has been working fine or not | |
| 00:18:42 | sean-k-mooney | the issue is we are pasing two constratit files to pip | |
| 00:18:54 | sean-k-mooney | cmdargs: '/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/congress/.tox/lower-constraints/bin/pip install -c/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/requirements/upper-constraints.txt -U -c/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/congress/lower-constraints.txt -r/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/congress/test-requirements.txt | |
| 00:18:56 | sean-k-mooney | -r/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/congress/requirements.txt' | |
| 00:19:18 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think that is actully allowed | |
| 00:19:38 | smcginnis | It had been working. | |
| 00:19:57 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: doesn't lower constraint mean the lower bound? how can you tell it's not working if it installs a version newer than the lower bound? | |
| 00:20:57 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: the lower-constrating job is ment to install the oldest version that we say should work | |
| 00:21:09 | melwitt | oh, the job. I see | |
| 00:22:05 | sean-k-mooney | right so the job has not been running using our actual lower bound so we dont actully know the lower bound work. | |