| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-10-07 | |||
| 20:39:34 | artom | mriedem, dansmith ^^ if you get a chance to start taking a look | |
| 20:39:47 | artom | I left the main func tests as WIP because I want to add a test for the thing that ya.wang found | |
| 20:41:11 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Ignore volume exceptions during post_live_migration https://review.opendev.org/682622 | |
| 20:41:11 | openstack | bug 1843639 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "libvirt: post_live_migration failures to disconnect volumes result in the rollback of live migrations" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1843639 - Assigned to Lee Yarwood (lyarwood) | |
| 20:41:11 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Add regression test for bug #1843639 https://review.opendev.org/682621 | |
| 20:41:44 | mriedem | artom: just a thought, but you don't need to load up every test ever into the same patch for the numa lm functional stuff | |
| 20:42:01 | mriedem | like, happy path + framework stuff and then build on top in separate changes the weird edge cases and failure/rollback scenarios | |
| 20:42:09 | mriedem | that would make it a lot easier to review as well | |
| 20:42:14 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Error out interrupted builds https://review.opendev.org/666857 | |
| 20:42:42 | artom | mriedem, true | |
| 20:42:50 | artom | It'd make the reviewing more breakdown-able, in any case | |
| 20:42:52 | artom | Not sure about easier | |
| 20:43:14 | mriedem | broken down usually means easier | |
| 20:43:47 | mriedem | it would at least be easier for me to get the motivation to get started if it wasn't 1K in a single change... | |
| 20:43:55 | artom | I was thinking in the sense of "reviewing one test method/class per day" can be done in either case | |
| 20:43:56 | mriedem | a single WIP change at that | |
| 20:44:08 | mriedem | i guess it's not 1K | |
| 20:44:22 | artom | If you'd prefer it split into smaller chunks I can do that | |
| 20:44:50 | artom | But you'll just get 5 200LOC patches with a test class each instead of 1 KLOC patch with 5 test classes ;) | |
| 20:45:15 | mriedem | that's essentially what i did with the functional tests for cross-cell resize | |
| 20:45:29 | mriedem | starting here and then going up https://review.opendev.org/#/c/636253/ | |
| 20:46:20 | mriedem | i guess my point is seeing WIP + lots of code makes me really not want to start reviewing it :) | |
| 20:46:32 | mriedem | i will find any reason to procrastinate with something else | |
| 20:46:50 | artom | Fair enough - it's not like I didn't procrastinate :) | |
| 20:47:06 | artom | But... even if I -1 random changes of your for tenuous reasons? ;) | |
| 20:47:12 | artom | *of yours | |
| 20:47:49 | mriedem | you mean that will make me want to review your stuff *more*? | |
| 20:47:55 | artom | It doesn't?! | |
| 20:48:05 | mriedem | it might add to the guilt complex | |
| 20:48:10 | artom | I've been doing it wrong all this time! (by which I mean a week) | |
| 20:48:47 | mriedem | efried: i added cross-cell-resize to the ussuri runways queue, are we able to queue stuff up now? | |
| 20:50:09 | efried | mriedem: might as well. | |
| 20:50:39 | mriedem | efried: ok you could probably drop the -2 on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/674243/ as well | |
| 20:51:36 | efried | done | |
| 20:52:08 | dansmith | mriedem: how does runways work with the new process? I guess I had kinda imagined that we weren't going to do that | |
| 20:52:36 | mriedem | goto efried | |
| 20:52:52 | efried | (how) did it work before? | |
| 20:53:03 | mriedem | i wouldn't think the new spec approval process would change anything about runways | |
| 20:53:08 | mriedem | when feature code is ready queue it up | |
| 20:53:29 | mriedem | i guess i haven't dug into the new definition/direction stuff yet... | |
| 20:53:48 | mriedem | if a blueprint is approved and the code is ready for review i don't know why it wouldn't be in runways though | |
| 20:54:10 | dansmith | yeah, tbh it's less clear to me today than it was last week when we discussed, | |
| 20:54:12 | efried | Right, the only thing the additional "we're gonna constrain stuff" process would change is, if whenever we do the constraining activity we decide to drop something that's already got unmerged code proposed, we would -2 whatever's on bottom at that time. | |
| 20:54:25 | dansmith | plus the whole feature chaperone thing has me more confused | |
| 20:54:26 | efried | so play fast an loose until whenever we do that. | |
| 20:54:39 | efried | dansmith: did you read the faq? I updated it a couple hours ago. | |
| 20:54:58 | dansmith | no, but I read the comments that led to the change | |
| 20:55:18 | mriedem | official hand holder is just to help someone navigate the review process as far as i know | |
| 20:55:31 | efried | dev & review. Yes. | |
| 20:55:46 | dansmith | yeah, I get that | |
| 20:55:54 | dansmith | anyway, don't want to get back into it right now | |
| 21:06:35 | dansmith | mriedem: there's a lot more boilerplate required in API patches since the last time I wrote one.. any chance we have a checklist or something I can follow? | |
| 21:06:45 | dansmith | api samples, api refs, schema crap, etc, etc | |
| 21:07:34 | mriedem | yeah sec | |
| 21:07:56 | mriedem | https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/#the-nova-api | |
| 21:10:24 | dansmith | thanks | |
| 21:32:24 | mriedem | efried: is this what you were asking for and expecting in PS9? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/667133/10/doc/source/user/index.rst@75 | |
| 21:32:38 | mriedem | if what i'm saying is something you agree with, i can approve and fup | |
| 21:33:15 | efried | looking. | |
| 21:34:46 | efried | mriedem: I agree, though this makes it *slightly* easier to find, since the first link in the admin doc is to the user side. | |
| 21:34:57 | efried | I didn't want the existing link removed fwiw, I just wanted a new one added. | |
| 21:35:00 | efried | but also | |
| 21:35:24 | efried | when it comes to docs, as long as we're not injecting anything wrong/regressive, I like the idea of merging quickly even if imperfect just to move things forward. | |
| 21:35:51 | efried | anyway, if you want to respin quick and self+2 I'll +A. | |
| 21:35:57 | efried | or fup, either way. | |
| 21:38:17 | mriedem | yeah i'll post a follow up | |
| 21:45:22 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: doc: link to user/availability-zones from user home page https://review.opendev.org/687165 | |
| 21:54:14 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/train: docs: Highlight the current broken state of SEV https://review.opendev.org/686414 | |
| 21:54:52 | mriedem | efried: what are your thoughts on cutting rc2? it's due thursday, so i guess eod tomorrow if we don't hear from aspiers? | |
| 21:56:25 | efried | mriedem: yes | |
| 21:56:43 | efried | mriedem: as in, merge the 'SEV busted' patch tomorrow and cut the RC as soon as it's in. | |
| 21:57:01 | mriedem | ok | |
| 21:57:12 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: fixtures: Beef up NeutronFixture https://review.opendev.org/686795 | |
| 21:57:17 | mriedem | i'll +2 the docs patch tomorrow | |
| 21:57:22 | dansmith | how invasive is it to just revert large chunks of it? | |
| 21:57:25 | mriedem | likely too risky to rush the other fix at this point anyway | |
| 21:57:39 | efried | mriedem: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2019-10-04.log.html#t2019-10-04T14:50:21 | |
| 21:57:49 | mriedem | dansmith: i'm assuming there would be a lot of pus and blood | |
| 21:57:55 | efried | mriedem: note that the doc patch is in stable so I can't help you. | |
| 21:58:11 | mriedem | sure, but dan can | |
| 21:58:16 | dansmith | yep | |
| 21:58:17 | efried | dansmith: riskier than not doing that. | |
| 21:58:25 | efried | and it works for common configs | |
| 21:58:54 | dansmith | well, I mean like reverting the piece that even lets you turn it on kinda thing | |
| 21:59:07 | dansmith | sounds like abandonware before delivery event | |
| 22:01:08 | mriedem | you'd just change the libvirt driver _sev_enabled method to return False | |
| 22:01:20 | dansmith | yeah, that doesn't sound so bad | |
| 22:01:44 | dansmith | so imagine it being two months from now and we still have radio silence on a fix and maintenance | |
| 22:01:58 | dansmith | if we reverted the renos and disabled it, we could remove it without much fanfare | |
| 22:02:06 | dansmith | I know that's fairly nuclear, but just worth considering I think | |
| 22:02:41 | mriedem | it would elicit a response at least :) | |
| 22:02:46 | dansmith | also that | |
| #openstack-nova - 2019-10-08 | |||
| 00:30:17 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: docs: Rewrite host aggregate, availability zone docs https://review.opendev.org/667133 | |
| 00:39:37 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: fixtures: Handle iterable params for 'NeutronFixture.list_*' https://review.opendev.org/686796 | |
| 00:45:03 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: fixtures: Store 'device_id' when creating port in NeutronFixture https://review.opendev.org/686797 | |
| 02:17:16 | openstackgerrit | Jing Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] Default mem_page_size to small for pinned instances https://review.opendev.org/686079 | |
| 02:43:34 | openstackgerrit | ya.wang proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Re-propose expose-auto-converge-post-copy spec for Ussuri https://review.opendev.org/687199 | |
| 04:57:35 | openstack | bug 1709118 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "_ContextAuthPlugin needs a refresh" [Low,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1709118 | |
| 04:57:35 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Remove workaround for bug #1709118 https://review.opendev.org/524316 | |
| 05:42:43 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: [Gate fix] Avoid use cell_uuid before assignment https://review.opendev.org/686996 | |