Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2020-07-30
15:31:41 ralonsoh I'll need to revisit the spec
15:31:42 sean-k-mooney ralonsoh: yes isnt that what the spec says
15:32:36 stephenfin ralonsoh: again, apologies for only getting to this now. I didn't know that this work was as far along as it is. You've been busy :)
15:32:39 sean-k-mooney https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/victoria/port-numa-affinity-policy.html#rest-api-impact
15:32:48 ralonsoh np at all
15:32:55 ralonsoh I'll revisit the spec and the patches
15:32:59 sean-k-mooney oh its in the resouce attibute
15:33:19 sean-k-mooney sorry no that is just an extend port attibute
15:33:48 sean-k-mooney so im not sure you need to updat ehte spec other then to remove the port_resource['resource_request'] = {
15:33:51 sean-k-mooney 'required': [os_traits.COMPUTE_NUMA_POLICY_REQUIRED]}
15:33:53 sean-k-mooney bit
15:34:14 ralonsoh sean-k-mooney, I need to clean up this part yes
15:34:28 sean-k-mooney nova will just read numa_affinity_policy field form the port and use that
15:34:40 ralonsoh perfect for me
15:34:51 sean-k-mooney ralonsoh: i was worried that you were only going to pass the trait
15:35:10 sean-k-mooney ralonsoh: that would not have been right from a nova point of view
15:48:52 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: by the way you also missed the mix hypervior usecase for the trait
15:49:24 sean-k-mooney but we can cross that bridge if we need too
16:01:05 openstackgerrit Pavlo Shchelokovskyy proposed openstack/nova master: Raise 409 when removing security group from instance https://review.opendev.org/735572
16:06:58 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: Lookup nic feature by PCI address https://review.opendev.org/739131
16:07:53 sean-k-mooney ralonsoh: stephenfin by the way should i drop the funcitonal tests form the coverage job or make a coverage with sudo job for os-vif https://review.opendev.org/#/c/728037/4/.zuul.yaml
16:08:10 stephenfin drop from coverage
16:08:14 stephenfin imo
16:08:26 sean-k-mooney cool i can do that trivially
16:08:37 ralonsoh sean-k-mooney, why do you need to drop them?
16:08:50 sean-k-mooney the openstack-cover-jobs
16:08:55 sean-k-mooney does not allow sudo to be used
16:09:00 ralonsoh right
16:09:06 sean-k-mooney so privsep fails
16:09:33 sean-k-mooney our functional tests actully need elevated right to run
16:09:37 sean-k-mooney becaue they acutlly use ovs
16:09:50 sean-k-mooney which actully is alos not in stalled in that job
16:10:25 sean-k-mooney so ya if i want to run them i need a custom job that has sudo and installs ovs like our custom functional job
16:10:44 ralonsoh sean-k-mooney, you can take the neutron functional base one
16:10:48 ralonsoh if you want
16:11:16 sean-k-mooney no we have a base job for fucntional test
16:11:29 sean-k-mooney openstack-tox-functional-ovs-with-sudo
16:11:39 ralonsoh or this one yes
16:12:05 sean-k-mooney but i either need to inherit form that and chagne the env form functional to cover
16:12:16 sean-k-mooney or i drop the fucntional test
16:12:38 sean-k-mooney i was leaning to removing them so that you did not need sudo and ovs to run tox -e cover
16:13:02 sean-k-mooney we dont actully have covage report for os-vif currently so this is adding them
16:13:48 sean-k-mooney jangutter: any opipion ^
16:14:54 sean-k-mooney jangutter: question is shoudl os-vifs coverage tox enve run just unit test or unit and functional
16:17:14 jangutter sean-k-mooney: :reading:
16:18:27 jangutter sean-k-mooney: can we achieve full coverage with just unit tests? I'm almost leaning yeah.
16:18:49 sean-k-mooney we could
16:18:56 sean-k-mooney although that is not the goal
16:19:19 sean-k-mooney but i do want to more or less know what is and is not tested
16:19:49 sean-k-mooney 100% coverage is not need but if we are low in one module it would be good to look at why
16:22:15 jangutter I agree - full coverage might might just be for bragging rights (and can be done badly). My feeling is that unit testing should be slightly more than functional, but if we don't measure it we won't know it.
16:23:06 sean-k-mooney so are you ok with the coverage job just doing unit. i could add a second coverage-all that ran both
16:23:33 sean-k-mooney i would like to enable coverage by default when you run just tox
16:23:49 sean-k-mooney but if its runing the functional test i would prefer not to
16:24:08 sean-k-mooney basically i want you to be able to jsut git clone and then run "tox"
16:24:13 sean-k-mooney without args and have it work
16:24:27 jangutter Same for me: I tend to run just unit when I dev, but rely on the CI to run functional.
16:24:42 sean-k-mooney i run the fucnational test but not on my laptop
16:24:46 sean-k-mooney i do it in my devstack vms
16:25:00 sean-k-mooney so for small change i dont want to have to instlal ovs
16:25:58 openstackgerrit Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Offline Reshape tool spec https://review.opendev.org/742908
16:26:08 jangutter I'm OK with adding more non-sudo stuff to the default tox run.
16:27:22 sean-k-mooney in os-vif the test are really fast so i was going to enable py3,pep8,docs,releasenotes,cover
16:27:38 sean-k-mooney by default
16:28:43 sean-k-mooney basically that is what i would like peple to run before pushing
16:29:01 jangutter I'm in agreement.
16:30:03 sean-k-mooney ok ill remvoe the functional test from cover so for now at least
16:30:41 sean-k-mooney stephenfin: jangutter ralonsoh as a head up i also want to change the default ovsdb backend in os-vif this cycle
16:30:54 sean-k-mooney i ment to do it af ew releases ago
16:31:02 sean-k-mooney but we are still defaulting to ovs-vsctl
16:31:18 ralonsoh sean-k-mooney, in os-vif?
16:31:32 sean-k-mooney ralonsoh: ya
16:31:36 ralonsoh we removed ovs-vsctl, we only have native now
16:31:51 sean-k-mooney no
16:31:56 ralonsoh in neutron
16:32:03 sean-k-mooney in neutron yes
16:32:08 ralonsoh just to let you know
16:32:13 sean-k-mooney we never got around to doing it in os-vif
16:32:22 sean-k-mooney it was planed for train
16:32:37 sean-k-mooney but we forot to defualt in trian and hten remove in ussui
16:32:45 ralonsoh it doesn't makes sense to keep both
16:32:54 sean-k-mooney so im going to push a patch to do it now in victoria and remove in W
16:32:59 ralonsoh cool
16:33:22 sean-k-mooney i would remove it now but we have to have a deprecation cycle
16:33:39 ralonsoh at least default to native, I think so
16:34:23 sean-k-mooney yep anyway ill push a patch for that shortly
16:34:40 sean-k-mooney just tought ye would like to know
16:42:30 sean-k-mooney is this pep failure new http://paste.openstack.org/show/796470/
16:42:37 sean-k-mooney *pep8
16:43:13 sean-k-mooney looks like py38 and pyflakes are unhappy
16:46:39 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: tox -e pep8 --recreate
16:46:46 stephenfin you're using an old version of the library, I suspect
16:46:53 stephenfin that or constraints isn't properly set up
16:47:06 sean-k-mooney i did recreate it
16:47:15 sean-k-mooney but i might need to rebase
16:47:39 sean-k-mooney oh this is the train branch
16:47:43 sean-k-mooney im backporting
16:47:55 sean-k-mooney it need python 3.6
16:48:03 sean-k-mooney on train not 3.8
16:49:05 gmann sean-k-mooney: for 3.8 you need pyflakes 2.1.1 as min

Earlier   Later