| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-04-30 | |||
| 18:13:59 | melwitt | and since the bug was greyed out on http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/#1840159 at the time, that reinforced my thinking that the query didn't pick it up. sigh | |
| 18:21:40 | mriedem | \o/ | |
| 18:33:54 | gmann | dansmith: gibi this is ready - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/723645/ | |
| 18:49:04 | dansmith | gmann: a couple more wording clarification tings | |
| 18:49:06 | dansmith | *things | |
| 19:18:18 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add nova-status upgrade check and reno for policy new defaults https://review.opendev.org/723645 | |
| 19:18:21 | gmann | dansmith: updated ^^ | |
| 19:19:43 | dansmith | gmann: okay lemme just fix another thing in-line to avoid you having to do it | |
| 19:20:00 | gmann | dansmith: sure, thanks | |
| 19:20:56 | dansmith | gmann: is it "recommended" or "required" to enable enforce_scope if you have scope checking rules? | |
| 19:21:02 | dansmith | I thought required | |
| 19:21:22 | gmann | dansmith: this is separate flaf not scope one - enforce_new_defaults | |
| 19:21:24 | gmann | flag | |
| 19:21:42 | gmann | to switch to new default without overwriting the file | |
| 19:22:01 | dansmith | gmann: right, but if you have scope-checking rules and want to keep them, then you need enforce_scope=True right? | |
| 19:22:14 | dansmith | you're checking enforce_scope, but if that's disabled, you tell them to enable enforce_new_defaults | |
| 19:23:07 | gmann | dansmith: ok, so enforce_scope=True is required and (enforce_new_defaults=True OR file overwrite) to move to new things | |
| 19:23:24 | dansmith | right, I think you're telling them the wrong thing | |
| 19:23:33 | dansmith | let me comment for context and you can see if I'm right | |
| 19:23:39 | gmann | in that sentence i was targeting only file overwrite alternate via flag | |
| 19:24:00 | gmann | but i agree we can add enforce_scope=True also for full context | |
| 19:25:19 | dansmith | but the sentence is about keeping the new format | |
| 19:25:24 | dansmith | U cinnebted | |
| 19:25:26 | dansmith | whoa | |
| 19:25:28 | dansmith | "I commented" | |
| 19:33:26 | gmann | dansmith: replied, https://review.opendev.org/#/c/723645/11/nova/cmd/status.py@358 | |
| 19:33:38 | gmann | added scope and new flag way. | |
| 19:34:24 | dansmith | gmann: ++ | |
| 19:34:28 | gmann | my intention is they are aware of new flag enforce_new_defaults t o avoid legacy way of overwriting the file to new default | |
| 19:34:30 | dansmith | gmann: I will try really hard to +2 the next one | |
| 19:34:39 | gmann | ok, updating. | |
| 19:34:53 | dansmith | gmann: ack, I just think the message should include the error, and "how to fix the error" | |
| 19:40:54 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add nova-status upgrade check and reno for policy new defaults https://review.opendev.org/723645 | |
| 19:41:17 | gmann | dansmith: ^^ updated | |
| 19:44:49 | dansmith | gmann: I think you forgot to remove the old sentence | |
| 19:45:03 | gmann | ohh :( | |
| 19:45:08 | dansmith | otherwise that looks good to me | |
| 19:46:05 | dansmith | melwitt: you around to help me put gmann out of his misery? | |
| 19:47:29 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add nova-status upgrade check and reno for policy new defaults https://review.opendev.org/723645 | |
| 19:47:52 | gmann | dansmith: done, sorry for that. | |
| 19:47:56 | dansmith | gmann: thanks for your patience with me, +2d | |
| 19:47:57 | dansmith | melwitt: ^ | |
| 19:48:10 | dansmith | I gotta stretch my legs, bbl | |
| 19:49:48 | gmann | dansmith: thanks | |
| 19:51:31 | melwitt | yeah I'll get it | |
| 20:13:27 | melwitt | gmann: I found some misspellings and grammar things and what seem to be a few bugs, but I also suggested some additional info. let me know what you think. if you agree with them, I can update and approve if you want. I know you have been through a lot of updates with the policy docs things | |
| 20:13:56 | gmann | melwitt: ok, checking.. | |
| 20:15:13 | melwitt | the main thing I'm worried about is if operators just enable enforce_scope = True when they see the status check, without realizing that means end users will have to request scoped tokens from keystone in order to access the formerly admin, now system scoped admin APIs. if I understand correctly | |
| 20:33:58 | gmann | melwitt: thanks. replied. i linked the new doc there which i can move on those line so that they have complete steps info. | |
| 20:34:24 | gmann | mentioning those in upgrade checks is too much as they need to do read-only roles things also. | |
| 20:34:39 | gmann | is that fine ? | |
| 20:35:20 | melwitt | I dunno ... will depend on how carefully the operators regard that message | |
| 20:36:04 | melwitt | we can try it, just let's be ready for when/if people miss the "you have to request scoped tokens" part | |
| 20:37:05 | melwitt | like blarg admin APIs no longer work! | |
| 20:37:33 | gmann | ok, let me add those lines and then doc link. | |
| 20:38:24 | melwitt | I could be wrong. let's just say I've been burned by not 100% overly clear reno/tool output ... nova-consoleauth *cough cough* | |
| 21:22:57 | gmann | melwitt: ^^ updated, please check if looks fine. linked the main doc as 'educate' in reno but in upgrade check msg i need to paste the complete link - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/723645/15 | |
| 21:26:52 | melwitt | gmann: thanks. weird it didn't post an update in channel | |
| 21:26:56 | melwitt | oh our gerritbot left | |
| 21:28:06 | gmann | melwitt: yeah i was also surprised initially and rechecking my local branch that i did submit or not :) | |
| 21:28:17 | melwitt | haha yeah | |
| 21:28:32 | melwitt | I mentioned it in #opendev | |
| 21:31:31 | melwitt | gmann: the updates look good. I will watch in zuul so I can sanity check the generated doc previews and then I'll approve it after that | |
| 21:31:52 | gmann | melwitt: sure, thanks | |
| 21:40:16 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/os-vif master: [Community goal] Update contributor documentation https://review.opendev.org/722392 | |
| 21:41:09 | gmann | working now \o/ | |
| 21:41:34 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: ^^ updated as per your comment on 722392 | |
| 21:41:49 | sean-k-mooney | yep looking now | |
| 21:42:20 | sean-k-mooney | omg you have a white space how coudl you :P https://review.opendev.org/#/c/722392/3/doc/source/contributor/contributing.rst@29 | |
| 21:46:07 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: if you have time to fix https://review.opendev.org/#/c/722392/3/doc/source/contributor/contributing.rst those nits im happy with the content | |
| 21:46:39 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/os-vif master: [Community goal] Update contributor documentation https://review.opendev.org/722392 | |
| 21:46:54 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: done | |
| 21:47:03 | sean-k-mooney | awsome | |
| 21:47:47 | sean-k-mooney | ah i see you have already rechecked the other patch | |
| 21:47:57 | sean-k-mooney | i proably got lost with the zuul restart | |
| 21:48:28 | gmann | yeah, i thought that was merged | |
| 21:48:42 | sean-k-mooney | ya same | |
| 21:48:51 | sean-k-mooney | i guess not but it should merge soon | |
| 21:49:18 | sean-k-mooney | then we can merge stephens cahnge which is blocked by that | |
| 21:51:14 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: seems we need to backport that on ussuri brach also - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/724712/ | |
| 21:52:14 | sean-k-mooney | ya that makes sense i dont think we cap the sphinx version in the upperconstratit to prevent the issue | |
| 21:53:35 | gmann | we missed to recheck the fix and ussuri release one merged first - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/723687/ | |
| 21:55:22 | sean-k-mooney | ya one it merges on master we can cherry pick it and fast appove | |
| 21:55:33 | sean-k-mooney | then rebase teh git review patch on top | |
| 21:55:58 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure if i will be around much longer today be we can get that done tommorow | |
| 21:58:27 | gmann | +1 | |
| 22:14:49 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/ussuri: zuul: Switch to the Zuulv3 grenade job https://review.opendev.org/724189 | |
| 22:20:43 | melwitt | gmann: added a comment on the nova-status review, I had been thinking the non-existent policy file would also result in taking all of the defaults | |
| 23:22:09 | gmann | melwitt: sorry, I was away. | |
| 23:23:35 | gmann | you mean file location in nova.conf but does not exist or with defaults conf (oslo_policy.policy_file) with no file. | |
| 23:48:08 | melwitt | gmann: um... I'm not sure, I just meant like when there's no policy.json file, it uses the defaults in code? | |
| #openstack-nova - 2020-05-01 | |||
| 00:36:07 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-vif master: Fix doc build job for wanring turn into error https://review.opendev.org/722407 | |
| 00:39:31 | gmann | melwitt: yes that is right. like all our job in gate is without no file. if no file then there is no issue it will be always default. | |
| 00:41:09 | gmann | oslo load file first if exist (1. try json load 2. if error then yaml load), and then any registered rule missing from file will be loaded from default. in case of no file all the rules will be missing so everything default will loaded in policy namespace | |
| 00:41:39 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/os-vif stable/ussuri: Fix doc build job for wanring turn into error https://review.opendev.org/724784 | |
| 00:42:13 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: stephenfin backported the os-vif doc job fix - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/724784/ | |
| 03:10:44 | melwitt | gmann: ok. thanks. sorry, was just wondering whether that was something to also mention in the nova-status upgrade mention or not, where it said blank file. I wasn't sure if blank file would also do the same as "no file" for option 3 in the message | |
| 07:18:22 | bauzas | gibi: bank holiday today, will be back on Monday | |
| 09:06:51 | stephenfin | lyarwood: you stable-core on os-vif? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/724784/ | |
| 09:11:58 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-vif master: [Community goal] Update contributor documentation https://review.opendev.org/722392 | |