Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2020-06-24
12:43:33 stephenfin *IMO
12:44:28 sean-k-mooney so that is one way to do it yes. and in that case if i printed the child node woudl you expect it to print just its data or the data of its childeren
12:44:39 sean-k-mooney *also the data of its childern
12:44:59 stephenfin depends on how you have __repr__ implemented for the Node class
12:45:17 stephenfin You could do either, so long as it's consistent
12:45:39 stephenfin might be worth looking at what xml.etree.ElementTree does (and the lxml.etree equivalent)
12:45:39 sean-k-mooney so that the thing im currently implmeneting an __iter__ and __repr__ for ProviderTree and _Provider
12:46:21 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: so i know the lark parser lib chose to make the tree iterator, iterate over every node in the tree in a fixed order
12:46:30 sean-k-mooney not just the child nodes
12:46:48 sean-k-mooney and so if you pirnt the node they just print them selves not there childern
12:46:49 stephenfin that seems weird to me
12:46:56 stephenfin but it really depends on how you plan to use it
12:47:26 sean-k-mooney let me see what lxml does
12:47:59 sean-k-mooney i have implemetned both way and swap back and forward between what i think is correct.
13:04:18 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: they support both but in a slightly weird way https://lxml.de/tutorial.html#tree-iteration
13:05:19 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: what should I be looking at?
13:05:27 stephenfin I can only see a single root node with leaves
13:05:31 sean-k-mooney __iter__ on the element class iterates the childern __iter__ on the ElementTree class iterates all elements in the tree and the elemnet objects also have a .iter() function to do tree iteration on the elements
13:07:36 stephenfin Hmm, I'm not seeing that
13:07:42 stephenfin in the link you provided
13:08:15 sean-k-mooney "where you want to recursively traverse the tree and do something with its elements, tree iteration is a very convenient solution. Elements provide a tree iterator for this purpose. It yields elements in document order, i.e. in the order their tags would appear if you serialised the tree to XML:"
13:08:47 sean-k-mooney so the elements.itor() function is recursive over the child nodes and __iter__ is not recursive
13:09:24 sean-k-mooney so i think the behvior i want is __iter__ for ProviderTree should yeild all the provider in the tree in depth first order
13:09:50 sean-k-mooney but __iter__ on the provider will just yeild its imideate childeren
13:09:57 sean-k-mooney if i was to follow there patteren
13:12:45 stephenfin ah, so it's just a depth-first search
13:13:01 sean-k-mooney depth first traversal but yes
13:13:16 stephenfin *traversal, yeah
13:13:38 sean-k-mooney you could do it breathfirst but we already do depth first for get_provider_uuids
13:14:14 stephenfin what you're suggestions works for me, anyway
13:14:29 stephenfin different behavior on ProviderTree vs provider
13:15:23 sean-k-mooney ya i expect tree to have tree iteration and i guess node to have iteration of just there direct childern also make sense
13:15:42 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: etree makes there element behave like python lists
13:16:14 sean-k-mooney and i think that behvior makes sense for proviers but the ProviderTree shoudl act like a tree
13:37:22 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Try to make a glance multistore job https://review.opendev.org/734184
14:37:55 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make libvirt able to trigger a backend image copy when needed https://review.opendev.org/656998
14:37:55 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Plumb image import functionality through our glance module https://review.opendev.org/731550
14:37:56 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Try to make a glance multistore job https://review.opendev.org/734184
14:37:56 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add libvirt RBD configuration doc https://review.opendev.org/731577
14:38:33 dansmith melwitt: had to rebase, can you re-+W those two? ^
14:56:23 aarents Hi, what the meaning of "DNM:" in commit title ?
14:58:12 bauzas aarents: Do Not Merge
14:58:38 aarents bauzas: k thks
14:59:01 bauzas np
15:02:42 melwitt dansmith: will do
15:27:56 stephenfin bauzas: friendly reminder on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/714700/, if you've time :)
15:28:38 bauzas stephenfin: yup, haven't forgotten but I looked at the whole series to refresh my mind
15:30:03 dansmith melwitt: thanks
15:42:51 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: Make greande jobs n-v for EM and oldest stable https://review.opendev.org/737332
15:59:48 bauzas stephenfin: question before I leave https://review.opendev.org/#/c/714697/10/nova/objects/instance_numa.py@213
16:00:39 bauzas I do understand this could be silly to have more than one policy, but should we have a kind of nova status upgrade check preventing it ?
16:37:07 stephenfin bauzas: It's not just silly, it's impossible
16:37:39 stephenfin The only way we'd get into that situation is via manual DB modifications, and when that's done all cards are off the table
16:38:25 stephenfin An upgrade check wouldn't resolve anything either, since if someone had done manual DB modifications beforehand, they could do them again after the upgrade check ran
16:41:32 sean-k-mooney bauzas: it was just stored in the wrong place
16:41:47 sean-k-mooney bauzas: the cpu policy has alsways been vm wide
16:41:52 sean-k-mooney not per cell
16:41:57 stephenfin yup. That was my bad
16:42:04 stephenfin I was young and innocent
16:42:13 sean-k-mooney i actully think this predates you
16:42:22 stephenfin nope, I added that
16:42:45 sean-k-mooney :'O how could you :P
16:42:53 stephenfin previously we determined whether policy was in effect by whether cpu_pinning_raw was set or not
16:43:01 stephenfin _that_ was ndipanov
16:43:11 sean-k-mooney ah ok
16:46:22 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: also handnt review that till now but it looks correct
16:47:05 stephenfin thanks
18:44:48 sean-k-mooney melwitt: dansmith shoudl this have a +w https://review.opendev.org/#/c/656998/
18:45:33 sean-k-mooney dansmith: have you resolved the fact that it needs admin to work unless you own the image
18:45:57 sean-k-mooney https://review.opendev.org/#/c/734184 has the depends on but that earlier patch does not
18:45:59 dansmith sean-k-mooney: no, buried under many other dependent issues right now
18:46:33 sean-k-mooney dansmith: ok so the first two patches in the change have 3 +2s and +w
18:46:54 dansmith that should do it :)
18:47:03 dansmith it works as expected if you own the image,
18:47:11 dansmith and it's off by default, so I think it's okay at the moment from our side anyway
18:47:28 dansmith it just doesn't work with the image we create in devstack
18:47:32 sean-k-mooney right i was wondering if you wanted to hold them untill you fixed the other case but if you ok with them mergeing then cool
18:47:44 dansmith I think they're fine as is,
18:48:05 dansmith it's early in the cycle and if we don't get something resolved (I'm sure we will) then we can add to the docs patch about caveats
18:48:39 sean-k-mooney dansmith: ya if we dont figure something out we can always add a worksaround config option if needed to use admin
18:48:52 sean-k-mooney or document it as you said
18:48:56 dansmith yeah, although that has caveats for quota
18:49:00 dansmith so docs either way
18:49:47 sean-k-mooney ok in that case im going to call it a day o/
18:50:14 dansmith thanks for looking out :)
20:17:36 melwitt dansmith, gmann: I've got a small fix proposed for a gate bug [that doesn't happen very often] around a InstanceMapping.save() race if you might be interested in reviewing https://review.opendev.org/734400
20:21:46 dansmith melwitt: why the queued_for_delete=True in the test?
20:21:56 dansmith won't hurt anything but doesn't seem relevant?
20:23:04 spatel sean-k-mooney: does openstack has any config option to tell build 5 machine in single shot?
20:23:31 melwitt dansmith: oh, I was thinking (at the time) I needed something to "save" with it but the uuid would have done it huh? other than that it just mimics the actual bug (update of qfd failed) but not really relevant
20:23:31 spatel I am using terraform and its not letting me build 10 machine but if i say do 5 machine it works
20:23:55 dansmith melwitt: but the copy you're save()ing shouldn't have that set in the real race condition
20:24:14 dansmith the *other* one might, but not the stale one right?
20:24:23 dansmith er, the one that really got deleted
20:25:51 melwitt dansmith: no it shouldn't. what I was thinking was I wanted to make an instance mapping that is not yet qfd = True and then in the test I would set qfd = True and save it but I cheated by not having the mapping be returned by a "get" method 😬
20:25:51 melwitt dansmith: no it shouldn't. what I was thinking was I wanted to make an instance mapping that is not yet qfd = True and then in the test I would set qfd = True and save it but I cheated by not having the mapping be returned by a "get" method 😬
20:26:37 dansmith so gonna snip that out for posterity?
20:26:45 melwitt sure
20:27:09 dansmith it sent me on a goose chase trying to figure out why it mattered, so probably good
20:27:16 melwitt oh sorry :(

Earlier   Later