Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2020-04-02
14:17:59 mriedem @mock.patch('nova.objects.CellMapping.get_by_uuid', side_effect=exception.CellMappingNotFound('uuid')
14:18:05 mriedem something like that as a decorator to the test case method
14:20:19 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Combine the limits policies in single place https://review.opendev.org/715678
14:28:28 nightmare_unreal Thanks !!
14:35:11 openstackgerrit jayaditya gupta proposed openstack/nova master: Support for nova-manage placement heal_allocations --cell https://review.opendev.org/714459
14:35:37 dansmith brinzhang_: are you working on feedback on the PUT patch?
14:41:43 francoisp stephenfin, just to draw your attention, I answered your last question on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/669674/10 - thanks!
14:42:03 stephenfin ack
14:48:26 openstackgerrit Alexandre arents proposed openstack/nova master: Calculate over_committed_disk_size for raw instances https://review.opendev.org/717037
15:38:22 gmann melwitt: that is correct. I need to propose some ideas on warning disable on oslo side what discussed with lbragstad. But yes all these are planed before FF. I am hoping to finish the policy things first by this Sat or Sunday.
15:50:16 gibi nova meeting starts in 10 minutes on #openstack-meeting-3
15:50:41 bauzas melwitt: sorry I didn't had time yet to review your nova-manage patches, is it still worth it given the -W ?
15:50:51 dansmith gibi: fyi, I'm running final tests on a change to that PUT patch to address just the critical bits of alex_xu's review
15:50:53 bauzas but of course I'll do it if you want
15:51:23 dansmith didn't get a response from brinzhang_ so I assume he's not working on it right now
15:52:58 gibi dansmith: ack. thanks
15:58:18 gmann dansmith: gibi also we need to add schema tests coverage for None to verify those things.
15:59:27 dansmith gmann: I'm changing how those checks work, which might mean not
15:59:47 dansmith device_name appears to be nullable at least, in the schema and in the db
16:00:02 dansmith the others are all separate definitions I think
16:01:06 gmann yeah, other does not allow None from schema only device do.
16:01:53 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: Introduce 'pcpuset' field for InstanceNUMACell https://review.opendev.org/716984
16:02:45 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Fix assertEqual param order in Accelerator tests https://review.opendev.org/717069
16:02:46 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Stabilize functional tests https://review.opendev.org/717070
16:04:18 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Allow PUT volume attachments API to modify delete_on_termination https://review.opendev.org/693828
16:04:52 dansmith gmann: ^
16:05:08 gmann thanks checking
16:08:00 tosky for stable maintainers: this last review should remove any reference to legacy-tempest-dsvm-full-devstack-plugin-nfs (then we are doing the same in Cinder): https://review.opendev.org/#/c/714958/
16:08:14 gmann dansmith: do not we nee do check dot with old value vefore change - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/693828/25..26/nova/api/openstack/compute/volumes.py@460
16:08:17 gmann before
16:08:54 dansmith gmann: why? we sad that if you PUT with no changes it's not an error right?
16:09:37 dansmith technically BDM should not be doing a db save if there are no changes, but not all objects do that properly.. but either way, no reason to just add more to the conditional really
16:10:12 gmann dansmith: yeah but when we add policy in next patch that become difficult to handle on "update request" vs "no change means not update request"
16:10:29 dansmith gmann: I don't follow
16:11:08 gmann in case of "swap + update" - we consider request is for update only when value is changed right. if value is same then we need to consider no update request and it is onyl swap
16:11:45 gmann in that case, how we can check the update policy so that that policy is being checked only when request is update (means value change)
16:12:02 dansmith in 2.85 we should only consider it a swap if volumeId is changed
16:12:17 gmann but we support swap + update together also
16:12:23 dansmith i.e. only check the stricter policy if volumeId is changed, otherwise we check the regular PUT policy
16:12:24 gmann >2.85
16:12:55 dansmith the swap policy should imply you can also change the other values right?
16:12:58 gmann yeah and checking regular PUT policy when value is same is wrong.
16:13:11 dansmith I disagre
16:13:32 gmann we want to allow update for non-admin
16:13:36 dansmith if volumeId is changed, we check the swap policy, else check PUT policy
16:13:59 gmann let me rephrase
16:14:23 dansmith in this patch it's all one policy, and the next patch splits them into two
16:16:38 gmann ok, we can discuss in next patch but there question was - we should not check the PUT policy if request is swap only not update.
16:16:56 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: Introduce 'pcpuset' field for InstanceNUMACell https://review.opendev.org/714658
16:17:08 gmann knowing it is 'not update' is only done by if value is changed
16:17:25 dansmith gmann: and like I said, I think >=2.85, we should only ever consider something a swap if the volumeId changed, otherwise it's a put, even if *nothing* changed
16:18:29 gmann dansmith: that is question actually. if nothing changes should we consider that as update request ? especially when we allow people to replicate the PUT and change only volumeId fir swap
16:18:51 gmann if do so then we endup checking two (PUT and SWAP) policy for swap
16:19:27 dansmith I strongly feel that going forward this should behave like a regular PUT, where you can PUT with no changes all the time,
16:19:38 dansmith and only check the swap policy if you're actually changing the volume
16:19:45 dansmith I don't see how anything else makes sense
16:21:44 gmann dansmith: yeah +1 on 'only check the swap policy if you're actually changing the volume'. but this became hard to implement with no value check of dot.
16:22:00 gmann i think if you rebase the policy patch then it will be clear.
16:22:28 dansmith okay I don't see what the value of dot has to do with which policy gets checked
16:22:38 gmann policy stuff is a challenge here
16:22:50 bauzas gibi: if you don' mind, I would appreciate https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/vgpu-multiple-types to be targeted for ussuri-3
16:23:08 dansmith gmann: do you not agree that if you have swap permissions, you should also be able to change dot?
16:23:09 bauzas the patches in question are small
16:23:36 gmann dansmith: that is fine but vice versa should not
16:23:42 gmann dansmith: here - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/711194/11..13/nova/api/openstack/compute/volumes.py@468
16:23:46 gibi bauzas: noted, I will update lauchpad after the meeting
16:23:56 gmann otherwise we end up doing PUT policy check always
16:24:21 bauzas gibi: thanks
16:24:22 dansmith gmann: right but as stephen (and now I) say there, that's the wrong place to check policy
16:24:58 dansmith gmann: we should check at the beginning of update(), either the PUT or PUT-with-swap policy based on whether or not volumeId is changed.. it should be very simple if..else
16:25:41 dansmith gmann: anyway, once the base patch looks like it's +2 I will rebase the policy patch (or help brinzhang_ ) and we can discuss/argue the policy bit on that
16:27:03 gmann dansmith: ok. after rebase it will be more clear. But i think i got your point of swap policy supersede the PUT policy
16:27:18 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Allow PUT volume attachments API to modify delete_on_termination https://review.opendev.org/693828
16:27:23 dansmith gmann: ack
16:27:30 dansmith gmann: ^ that removes one more thing alex asked about that I forgot
16:27:41 gmann ok
16:28:13 dansmith gmann: sorry if it got lost in the policy discussion, but... is there still a need to change the schema for null-ness?
16:29:41 gmann with 'x in attr' check, it is not needed
16:29:54 dansmith gmann: okay cool
16:31:09 stephenfin dansmith: off the top of your head, obj_from_primitive is called whenever we pull an o.vo from the DB, yeah?
16:31:31 dansmith stephenfin: for serialized objects
16:36:21 bauzas artom: FWIW, I left the bare minimum in the etherpad for your OSC concerns, the floor is yours :p
16:36:28 bauzas artom: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-victoria-ptg
16:36:31 artom bauzas, OK
16:36:44 artom bauzas, I'll proll'y just be lazy and harass mordred
16:37:01 bauzas I think the problem isn't the design as I said
16:37:06 artom About where any new microversion-enabling client code should go
16:37:10 bauzas we discussed it so many times
16:37:17 bauzas I think we just need hands
16:37:32 artom bauzas, well that's the point, right? We already say "if you're adding a new microversion, you must provide the novaclient patch"
16:37:41 artom Not we'll be saying "and you also need to provide the osdk patch"
16:37:45 artom If osdk is indeed the correct place
16:37:45 bauzas artom: it's more complicated than that
16:37:56 bauzas artom: if you're about to propose, say 2.81
16:38:10 bauzas artom: then you also need to make sure that <2.81 works too
16:38:29 bauzas and then you signed-off for doing all the stuff, yay
16:38:43 artom bauzas, oh, because of the gap
16:38:45 artom *sigh*
16:38:52 artom Yeah ok, I get it
16:38:54 mordred well - once we reach steady-state making sure <2.81 works too should be pretty easy

Earlier   Later