| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-12-16 | |||
| 17:04:19 | gmann | checking | |
| 17:06:17 | gmann | gibi: yeah, we can remove that as it was just for testing things and pick of policy file is on oslo side now | |
| 17:06:20 | gmann | updating | |
| 17:06:28 | gibi | thanks | |
| 17:09:53 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/placement master: Remove deprecated [placement]/policy_file config option https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/764409 | |
| 17:10:20 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Use the non polling notification waiter in func test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/758445 | |
| 17:10:21 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Create a fixture around fake_notifier https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/758446 | |
| 17:10:54 | gmann | gibi: done ^^ | |
| 17:11:24 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/placement master: [goal] Deprecate the JSON formatted policy file https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/764394 | |
| 17:12:17 | gibi | looking | |
| 17:13:16 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Use NotificationFixture for legacy notifications too https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/758448 | |
| 17:13:42 | gibi | gmann: I'm +2 on both policy patch now, thanks for proposing them | |
| 17:14:04 | gmann | gibi: thanks. | |
| 17:14:39 | gmann | I am going to write the unit tests also for placement policy like we did in nova so that new policy changes can be validated correctly. but sometime next week | |
| 17:14:41 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Test the NotificationFixture https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/758450 | |
| 17:16:09 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Move fake_notifier impl under NotificationFixture https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/758451 | |
| 17:46:38 | sean-k-mooney1 | gibi: gmann so im about to drop for the day but where did we settelon on allowing {} in unshleve | |
| 17:47:32 | sean-k-mooney1 | to me blocking it seams wrong and a bug that shoudl be corrected. { "unkonwn" :"unknown"} != {} the former should be blocked but i think the latter shoudl be treaded the same as null | |
| 17:49:36 | gibi | gmann: ack, thanks | |
| 17:49:48 | gibi | sean-k-mooney1: I don't think we had a final agreement | |
| 17:49:58 | gibi | we just stopped arguing:) | |
| 17:50:22 | sean-k-mooney1 | ok i might be back latter after dinner. but that is my perspective on the topic in anycase | |
| 18:12:32 | gibi | sean-k-mooney1: ack, I share your view | |
| 18:16:26 | melwitt | surely there's precedent for this? I thought a lot of the server actions apis are this way | |
| 18:21:33 | melwitt | if other apis treat null == {} then it seems ok. if they don't, I would make it consistent with the other apis | |
| 18:38:00 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Revert "Temporarily disable parts of heal port allocation test" https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/755995 | |
| 18:45:38 | gmann | sean-k-mooney2: ack, as gibi mentioned, no final agreement yet we can discuss further | |
| 18:47:21 | gmann | melwitt: all other action API except lock-2.56 and unshelve-2.77 except everything in request, {} or {unknown: unknown} because there is no schema for those as per legacy compatibility. | |
| 18:48:15 | gmann | lock-2.56 and unshelve-2.77 started accepted more param in request body and new schema for those follow different pattern. lock does not block {} but unshelve block {} | |
| 18:49:07 | melwitt | gmann: sorry not sure I parse that. you're saying that all apis except lock-2.56 and unshelve-2.77 do not accept {} as null. but that lock-2.56 and unshelve-2.77 do accept it? | |
| 18:49:22 | melwitt | and that is because the older apis have legacy behavior | |
| 18:50:22 | gmann | melwitt: no, all other action APIs except {}, null, or {unknown: unknown} | |
| 18:50:36 | gmann | s/expect/accept | |
| 18:51:21 | gmann | lock after 2.56 and unshelve after 2.77 started then schema checks but both in different pattern | |
| 18:51:37 | melwitt | oh, ok. seems like unshelve should too by consistency. I may be missing some additional context | |
| 18:51:54 | gmann | this is more context on that - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/663851/34/nova/api/openstack/compute/schemas/servers.py#695 | |
| 18:52:05 | melwitt | ok so this decision would likely affect all apis going to a newer microversion? | |
| 18:52:15 | gmann | but yeah i agree on consistency part but which one we follow that is for discussion | |
| 18:52:55 | melwitt | I see. so we will either make unshelve allow {} or make lock disallow {} | |
| 18:53:28 | gmann | melwitt: yeah if we improve the other action APIs or when they have some request body change in new microversion then they will follow the pattern we decide now | |
| 18:53:33 | melwitt | got it | |
| 18:53:36 | gmann | yeah | |
| 18:54:00 | melwitt | ok, so I think {unknown: unknown} seems like the weirdest one that makes sense to block in new apis | |
| 18:54:10 | gmann | and brinzhang_ started to document the current behavior in api-ref https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/767251 | |
| 18:54:11 | melwitt | (as sean said earlier) | |
| 18:54:40 | gmann | melwitt: yeah {unknown: unknown} will be blocked for all new mprovement | |
| 18:54:43 | gmann | improvement | |
| 18:54:59 | melwitt | the {} makes some sense though and I could imagine veteran users being caught by surprise if we say that is no longer allowed to represent null | |
| 18:55:38 | melwitt | so it will be tradeoff between api purity vs user ease it seems | |
| 18:57:19 | melwitt | I think I'd be slightly in favor of allowing {} for the user ease reason | |
| 18:58:01 | melwitt | I do appreciate that it is redundant with null though | |
| 18:58:19 | gmann | ok, if user considering {} as null then not breaking existing users make sense. | |
| 19:00:10 | melwitt | yeah I mean, I think the use case will be automation or something that is setting values by a dict and when there is nothing they just do {} instead of saying "if nothing then null". but I don't know whether that is a thing people do | |
| 19:03:44 | gmann | i see, i think in python code it make sense as many automation might default to {} if nothing like kwargs or so. | |
| 19:06:24 | gmann | i agree on doing it consistently. | |
| 19:07:40 | gmann | melwitt: sean-k-mooney2 bauzas gibi let's do it in all action APIs to have consistency . i added this in api cleanup etherpad L89. https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-api-cleanup | |
| 19:07:57 | gmann | may be late in this cycle to do? if so we can do in X cycle? | |
| 19:08:15 | gmann | brinzhang_: ^^ | |
| 19:09:26 | gmann | or we can do one more 'multiple API improvement' microversion and pick few more improvement to do along with this. | |
| 19:10:36 | sean-k-mooney2 | gmann: i woudl proably pair it with the return codes cleanup | |
| 19:10:54 | sean-k-mooney2 | so number 8 on line 73 | |
| 19:11:54 | gmann | sean-k-mooney2: that is huge change and in past discussion we thought it is not worth to do as it may change many users scripts or so. | |
| 19:12:11 | sean-k-mooney2 | gmann: stephenfin has a patch for that up | |
| 19:12:12 | gmann | but I am ok to re-iterate it | |
| 19:12:17 | gmann | yeah | |
| 19:12:31 | sean-k-mooney2 | so i assumed that would get done this cycle | |
| 19:13:00 | gmann | that needed spec which i think stephenfin said not worth or so but let me check that | |
| 19:13:31 | sean-k-mooney2 | it was a lower priority this cycle so i dont know if he filed one or was going to | |
| 19:14:35 | gmann | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/749505 | |
| 19:15:00 | gmann | that is waiting for spec | |
| 19:16:13 | sean-k-mooney2 | stephenfin might have been hoping to do it as a specless blueprint since its resolving exisitng todos in the code but ya i know it lower on his list then the other items he is working on this cycle | |
| 19:17:04 | gmann | yeah. let's discuss it in X cycle PTG to pick few of them which are worth to do | |
| 19:17:22 | sean-k-mooney2 | works for me | |
| 19:18:03 | sean-k-mooney2 | i would like to see teh is_public flavor atitbue change done too at somepoint | |
| 19:18:16 | gmann | :) was typing that. | |
| 19:18:19 | sean-k-mooney2 | but not enought to prioritise it this cycle | |
| 19:18:28 | gmann | that is worth to fix | |
| 19:18:57 | sean-k-mooney2 | it is but on its own it a lot of work for littel benifit | |
| 19:19:12 | sean-k-mooney2 | with other changes it much much more resonable to me | |
| 19:19:33 | gmann | yeah with other improvement | |
| #openstack-nova - 2020-12-17 | |||
| 00:48:15 | brinzhang0 | gmann: ack, thanks, you have added in the cleanup apis etherpad, works for me, keep the consistency with other apis is better ^^ | |
| 02:45:15 | openstackgerrit | Wenping Song proposed openstack/nova master: Remove redundant code in instance delete https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/767449 | |
| 08:14:49 | openstackgerrit | zhulipeng proposed openstack/nova master: Fixed multipath residue when evacuating the VM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/767468 | |
| 08:40:39 | bauzas | good morning Nova | |
| 08:53:31 | gibi | bauzas: good morning to you too | |
| 08:55:34 | bauzas | gibi: last 2 days for you too ? | |
| 08:55:48 | gibi | bauzas: yepp, I'm already a bit in vacation mood | |
| 08:55:53 | bauzas | LOL | |
| 08:56:33 | bauzas | I'm still trying to remove the -W flag from the routed networks change before I'm going south :) | |
| 08:57:18 | bauzas | and wow, Zuul gave me +1 on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/749068/5 \o/ | |
| 08:57:22 | gibi | I know I will looking back at gerrit during the vacation periods as my wife has to work on some of the days | |
| 08:57:26 | bauzas | yeepeekay :) | |
| 08:57:39 | gibi | that is your present from Zuul :D | |
| 08:59:13 | bauzas | well, given how I battled with Zuul for this change, I'm more like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfpDSNNgYhI | |
| 09:01:28 | gibi | hehe, that is very vacation specific movie at least in my country :) | |
| 09:01:36 | gibi | almost like home alone | |
| 09:06:31 | bauzas | agreed, same here | |
| 09:07:15 | bauzas | I don't expect Christmas periods without Die Hard 2 or 1 movies being broadcasted on at least one of them | |
| 09:07:35 | bauzas | the 2 gets more broadcasted tho | |
| 09:09:31 | bauzas | wow, TIL the reasoning behind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAYIgEpds_Y | |