| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-08-05 | |||
| 13:56:20 | Rubueno | "Unexpected exception in API method: TypeError: __init__() takes at least 4 arguments (2 given)" | |
| 13:57:10 | kashyap | aspiers: BTW, earlier, c.get() does it; no need for c.attrib.get() :-) -- you know why | |
| 13:58:11 | aspiers | kashyap: oh yeah, that's even better | |
| 14:00:46 | aspiers | kashyap: just to be 100% clear before you vanish for a significant length of time, you're intending to reply to https://review.opendev.org/#/c/673151/ later today right? If you have any nits which you want fixing, I really want to get those done before you go so that you can give an honest +1 :) Not trying to pester as I'm around all day - just making sure :) | |
| 14:01:43 | kashyap | aspiers: Writing right now | |
| 14:01:48 | aspiers | awesome, thanks! | |
| 14:03:01 | kashyap | aspiers: Also, note, don't worry - I've been looking at this for a couple of days, not doing it in a hurry :-) | |
| 14:03:08 | aspiers | cool | |
| 14:03:50 | kashyap | aspiers: Also, congrats ... you are one of the few people who can distinguish the getCapabilities() and getDomainCapabilities() at feature-level :D | |
| 14:04:01 | aspiers | heh | |
| 14:04:31 | aspiers | Well they're kind of confusing | |
| 14:05:29 | alex_xu | mriedem: do you want to give a help on this https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:claim_for_instance? I remember you reviewed the original vgpu code also | |
| 14:06:33 | kashyap | alex_xu: They _are_ confusing. You'll recall - a few months ago, when you added that 'infra' patch for domCaps, we hashed out doc string accuracy over a couple of days. | |
| 14:07:00 | aspiers | I think that last message was meant for me :) | |
| 14:07:09 | aspiers | Yes I do recall that | |
| 14:11:06 | alex_xu | kashyap: emmm...what context? | |
| 14:11:25 | kashyap | alex_xu: Err, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the nick | |
| 14:11:30 | kashyap | Yes, it was for aspiers, indeed | |
| 14:11:40 | alex_xu | ah | |
| 14:12:09 | spatel | sean-k-mooney: morning | |
| 14:12:57 | aspiers | spatel: don't think he's around | |
| 14:15:19 | spatel | aspiers: Thanks, yes it seems. (untill noon tuesday gmt) | |
| 14:20:17 | kashyap | aspiers: Can the fix to test_driver.LibvirtConnTestCase.test_cpu_info be separated out? | |
| 14:20:40 | kashyap | (And also test_get_instance_capabilities()) | |
| 14:20:56 | aspiers | it could, but is it really worth it? | |
| 14:21:29 | aarents | Hi there, can someone tell me who can review this https://review.opendev.org/#/c/670000/ it is about _get_guest_config() potential bug | |
| 14:21:32 | kashyap | aspiers: Not, probably. (I was just looking at it form a "is this strictly necessary for this?") | |
| 14:21:48 | aspiers | aarents: that's a great review number | |
| 14:22:35 | kashyap | aspiers: Just so that it makes future git sleuthing (`blame`, or even goodness forbid bacports :D) easier when not mixing absolutely unnedeed changes in the same patch (but add it in on top). | |
| 14:22:52 | kashyap | aspiers: But it's not worth it here | |
| 14:23:13 | aspiers | kashyap: I can do, I guess all the SEV stuff needs to be rebased anyway | |
| 14:23:27 | aspiers | since I already posted a patch set to address your other nit | |
| 14:23:31 | kashyap | aspiers: Okay, you can do it probably once I hit send shortly | |
| 14:23:38 | kashyap | aspiers: Ahh, right | |
| 14:23:49 | aspiers | kashyap: well if I do it, it will invalidate your +1 | |
| 14:24:00 | aspiers | kashyap: so if I do it, it needs to be now | |
| 14:24:20 | kashyap | aspiers: Hehe, I'll give a "future-proof" +1 that, modulo that test rework, I don't have any further changes | |
| 14:24:37 | aspiers | kashyap: I'll do it now | |
| 14:24:40 | kashyap | aspiers: I'm mostly writing tiny observations as I saw | |
| 14:24:42 | kashyap | Okay... | |
| 14:25:00 | aspiers | kashyap: since we're both insane perfectionists ;-) | |
| 14:25:17 | aarents | aspiers: Yes, It was not so easy to caught that ;) | |
| 14:29:17 | aspiers | kashyap: while I'm at it, should I split out the assertXmlEquals *options addition? | |
| 14:29:54 | kashyap | aspiers: I was thinking about it -- it certainly removes the noise. And makes it slightly easier to reviewers who're _not_ familiar this area, IMHO | |
| 14:29:59 | aspiers | True | |
| 14:30:03 | aspiers | Might as well | |
| 14:56:27 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Test blank sdk placement proxy https://review.opendev.org/674625 | |
| 14:56:51 | efried | mriedem, cdent, mordred: would one or more of y'all please check whether I did that ^ right? | |
| 14:57:37 | mordred | efried: I thnik that should do it | |
| 14:58:40 | efried | thx | |
| 14:58:54 | efried | it's the required-projects thing I can never seem to suss | |
| 15:01:10 | mriedem | efried: unrelated to that, i've noticed that we get several warnings from openstacksdk for cinder and barbican not having valid_interfaces in nova conf when functional tests fail, | |
| 15:01:15 | mriedem | http://logstash.openstack.org/#dashboard/file/logstash.json?query=message%3A%5C%22WARNING%20%5Bopenstack%5D%20Disabling%20service%5C%22%20AND%20message%3A%5C%22Encountered%20an%20exception%20attempting%20to%20process%20config%20for%20project%5C%22%20AND%20message%3A%5C%22no%20such%20option%20valid_interfaces%20in%20group%5C%22&from=7d | |
| 15:02:42 | efried | mriedem: that's interesting. Off the cuff, it's gotta be because we're not importing the ksa opts correctly. Investigating... | |
| 15:02:55 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Track libvirt host/domain capabilities for multiple machine types https://review.opendev.org/673151 | |
| 15:02:56 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Fix libvirt driver tests to use LibvirtConfigCapsGuest instances https://review.opendev.org/674629 | |
| 15:02:56 | openstackgerrit | Adam Spiers proposed openstack/nova master: Allow assertXmlEqual() to pass options to matchers.XMLMatches https://review.opendev.org/674628 | |
| 15:03:00 | aspiers | kashyap: ^^^ | |
| 15:03:55 | aspiers | efried: a couple of those are trivial changes split off from the main patch, and should only take 1--2 mins to review | |
| 15:04:15 | efried | mriedem: oh, right, we never did finish cutting over cinder or barbican to ksa | |
| 15:05:10 | efried | mordred: I wonder if it's worth fixing up the oslo.config method to accept a list of services we care about, so the sdk only builds proxies for those... | |
| 15:06:58 | kashyap | aspiers: Ack | |
| 15:08:51 | mordred | efried: the proxy objects themselves are on-demand. it doesn't build something if it's not used | |
| 15:09:20 | efried | mordred: well, okay, interpreting the conf sections tho | |
| 15:10:20 | mordred | that could maybe be worth it | |
| 15:33:46 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: Stabilize unshelve notification sample tests https://review.opendev.org/674636 | |
| 16:13:48 | mriedem | stephenfin: after debugging for a few hours i think i figured out the problem, | |
| 16:14:40 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/433b1662e48db57aaa42e11756fa4a6d8722b386/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L1807 builds a list of network dicts with a small subset of the actual network values we'd care about, in this case physical_network | |
| 16:15:28 | mriedem | that likely means this is mtu is wrong when attaching a port as well https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/433b1662e48db57aaa42e11756fa4a6d8722b386/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L2775 | |
| 16:56:08 | efried | dansmith: Please let me know when you're dug out and available for a couple minutes. | |
| 16:59:41 | dansmith | efried: I'm not dug out, but looking for anything else to do but keep digging | |
| 16:59:54 | efried | dansmith: oh, neat. | |
| 17:00:07 | efried | so at last week's meeting we discussed a couple of feature freeze exceptions | |
| 17:00:22 | efried | and basically gave you the deciding vote for both of them. | |
| 17:00:50 | dansmith | that's ... odd | |
| 17:01:26 | efried | dansmith: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova/2019/nova.2019-08-01-21.00.log.html#l-59 | |
| 17:01:44 | efried | the old "give action items to the absent guy" trick | |
| 17:02:17 | dansmith | so the image encryption and pcpu ones? | |
| 17:02:20 | efried | y | |
| 17:02:40 | dansmith | I didn't know the former was even a thing, which might be a bad sign | |
| 17:02:56 | efried | oh, mriedem seemed to think you had discussed it at the PTG and on IRC. | |
| 17:03:22 | efried | fungi is TC liaison for the popup team, he might be able to summarize from a xproj perspective. | |
| 17:03:36 | fungi | yup, just catching up real fast | |
| 17:04:07 | dansmith | well, I was involved in the earlier image encryption stuff | |
| 17:04:30 | dansmith | er, the signing stuff I mean | |
| 17:04:34 | fungi | it's the image encryption work the secustack folks have been trying to coordinate between barbican/cinder/glance/nova | |
| 17:04:48 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: neutron: avoid redundant show_network calls in _get_physnet_tunneled_info https://review.opendev.org/674422 | |
| 17:04:53 | fungi | so involves interrelated specs in all of them | |
| 17:05:10 | mriedem | efried: not ptg, there was a forum session | |
| 17:05:14 | mriedem | with nova/cinder/glance | |
| 17:05:21 | mriedem | john and dan were there from what i recall | |
| 17:05:22 | dansmith | ah right, I remember that for sure | |
| 17:05:43 | fungi | mostly hoping that if the idea has legs from nova's side, we don't end up with the corresponding bits implemented in other projects in train but not in nova until unpossible | |
| 17:05:56 | dansmith | I just somehow hadn't come across this spec yet | |
| 17:06:16 | dansmith | seems like mriedem's comments haven't been addressed in several days though | |
| 17:06:43 | efried | We discussed that this morning in the meeting, stand by for log... | |
| 17:07:02 | efried | http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/image_encryption/2019/image_encryption.2019-08-05-13.00.log.html | |
| 17:07:28 | efried | mriedem: I kinda had to proxy for you design-wise, you prolly want to see whether what was suggested and "agreed upon" makes sense in light of your comments. | |
| 17:08:07 | fungi | and yeah, it seemed like the main reason they ended up needing to request a spec freeze exception was that they were having trouble getting folks to review it, but of course everyone's busy so it's not like i'm pointing fingers | |
| 17:09:03 | mriedem | efried: you mean this? "mhen and i discussed that it would be the best option for now to make "image_key_id" immutable. So that is just can be set in the server create step." | |