| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-12-07 | |||
| 16:53:13 | bauzas | I'll write an email about it | |
| 16:53:56 | bauzas | and thanks for providing your time-offs, appreciated. | |
| 16:54:14 | bauzas | we can look at this meeting' notes to remember when people are around | |
| 16:54:43 | bauzas | last item on our agenda, | |
| 16:54:51 | bauzas | (pslestang) Specless BP approval request for soft deleting instance action | |
| 16:54:59 | bauzas | pslestang: your turn | |
| 16:55:07 | pslestang | sure | |
| 16:56:14 | pslestang | so at OVH we do not use the restore instance feature and we would like the instance action do be soft deleted when an instance is soft deleted, this is why we propose to add a configuration option to soft delete instance action on instance soft delete | |
| 16:56:29 | bauzas | this one, I'm OK with a specless BP | |
| 16:56:30 | bauzas | but, | |
| 16:56:39 | bauzas | "We should also implement the possibility to retrieve deleted instance actions as we do for instances." seems like an API change, right? | |
| 16:57:22 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: so just to be clear the meaning of soft delete upstream is the row is kept in the db but marked as delete | |
| 16:57:40 | pslestang | bauzas: I did not dive into the API so need to be checked | |
| 16:57:40 | sean-k-mooney | so that it can be mared as not deleted again later | |
| 16:57:46 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: yes | |
| 16:57:58 | bauzas | are we sure that instance-actions table is soft-deletable already ? | |
| 16:58:15 | sean-k-mooney | i tought it was | |
| 16:58:24 | bauzas | I dunno, hence my question | |
| 16:58:31 | pslestang | bauzas: yes it is | |
| 16:58:33 | bauzas | if yes, looks like a config option setting | |
| 16:58:35 | sean-k-mooney | so that if we resotred a soft deleted instance its action woudl be preserved | |
| 16:58:44 | bauzas | if no, this is a db change hence a spec required | |
| 16:59:00 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: so today we shoudl be soft deleting them already | |
| 16:59:03 | pslestang | the instance_actions table is soft-deletable | |
| 16:59:15 | sean-k-mooney | and the new config option you would instead hard delete them | |
| 16:59:32 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah I'm assuming we would mark the records soft-deleted in the DB and we would also unmark them when undeleting | |
| 16:59:47 | bauzas | actually, we're at time | |
| 16:59:54 | bauzas | but we can continue off the meeting | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2021/nova.2021-12-07-16.00.log.html | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2021/nova.2021-12-07-16.00.txt | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2021/nova.2021-12-07-16.00.html | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Dec 7 17:00:09 2021 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 17:00:09 | bauzas | #endmeeting | |
| 17:00:15 | gibi | I think there is a reason to keep the actions visible after the instance is deleted | |
| 17:00:28 | lyarwood | fun, I did have another topic | |
| 17:00:32 | lyarwood | A quick heads for upstream folks who might not be aware, I'll be stepping away from OpenStack in the new year from ~Jan 28th, moving to a different project within Red Hat. My focus until then is to close out the various open specs, bugfixes etc that I currently have. | |
| 17:00:34 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: today when we soft-delete an instance instance actions are not soft-deleted (I suppose to let the operator have an history on a deleted instane) | |
| 17:00:56 | gibi | lyarwood: I will miss you! | |
| 17:01:04 | gibi | lyarwood: but good luck! | |
| 17:01:08 | elodilles | lyarwood: :-o | |
| 17:01:15 | lyarwood | gibi: thanks | |
| 17:01:16 | gibi | and let me know if help needed to close up things | |
| 17:01:22 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: ah ok then i think that might be a bug then | |
| 17:01:28 | bauzas | lyarwood: sorry, I stopped the meeting on time given i didn't see any other item | |
| 17:01:40 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: we should keep the records in the db for auit use until they are archived | |
| 17:01:41 | lyarwood | oh I'll be chasing for reviews don't worry about that gibi :) | |
| 17:01:56 | lyarwood | bauzas: yeah np I didn't post it in the agenda | |
| 17:01:59 | elodilles | lyarwood: same as gibi says: will miss you (especially at stable team!) :( | |
| 17:02:05 | gmann | lyarwood: ohh. it is great help from you in many areas not just nova where we all will miss your contribution. | |
| 17:02:09 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: agree with that | |
| 17:02:13 | elodilles | lyarwood: good luck with the new position! | |
| 17:02:14 | bauzas | pslestang: sean-k-mooney: I think instance actions be kept when soft-delete isn't a bug but rather made on purpose | |
| 17:02:40 | lyarwood | gmann / elodilles ; thanks both | |
| 17:02:41 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: pslestang i belive is reproting that currently they are not kept | |
| 17:02:42 | gibi | pslestang, sean-k-mooney: I need the instance actions to remind me that I deleted my instance yesterday hence not finding it | |
| 17:02:48 | bauzas | but I'm not opposed to let operators define this behaviour as opt-out | |
| 17:03:21 | bauzas | pslestang: can you then clarify ? | |
| 17:03:23 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: right so my expection is that the instacne action woudl remain until we do archive-delete-rows or whatever that is called | |
| 17:03:24 | gmann | what is purpose of disabling it via config instead just ignore that action record if not needed ? | |
| 17:03:38 | sean-k-mooney | so that we could retrive them for deleted instance to see who deleted them | |
| 17:04:02 | bauzas | gmann: good question, what's the use case ? | |
| 17:04:11 | gibi | I need to drop, but I will read back tomorrow | |
| 17:04:15 | bauzas | not letting the instance action appearing at the API level ? | |
| 17:04:30 | bauzas | but given you need an instance UUID, I don't get the problem | |
| 17:04:42 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: you can list delete instanes | |
| 17:04:46 | sean-k-mooney | to get the uuid | |
| 17:05:04 | bauzas | sure, and then you can get the instance actions of that deleted UUID | |
| 17:05:09 | bauzas | which is expected behaviour | |
| 17:05:13 | sean-k-mooney | but pslestang can you confrim when you delete an instance today are the isntance actions deleted from the db | |
| 17:05:20 | bauzas | in order to know why this disappeared | |
| 17:05:34 | gmann | yeah | |
| 17:05:40 | pslestang | the use case is to have the table uniformly soft-deleted because we use a custom tool to archive the data | |
| 17:06:12 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: i think pslestang is suggeting that is not what happens today | |
| 17:06:21 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: yes i think i have seen your tool | |
| 17:06:29 | sean-k-mooney | its now in the ops tools repo right | |
| 17:06:37 | bauzas | again, what's the current behaviour ? | |
| 17:06:40 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: it should be I guess | |
| 17:06:56 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: i tought ye upstreamed it recently into one of the opendev repos | |
| 17:07:06 | sean-k-mooney | i rembere a mail thread about it | |
| 17:07:09 | pslestang | the current behaviour is: on instance soft delete, instance actions are not soft deleted | |
| 17:07:44 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: the db rows in the instance action table are deleted? or just not marked as deleted | |
| 17:07:45 | pslestang | when running nova db-archive, all the data ar copied into shadow table | |
| 17:08:07 | bauzas | that | |
| 17:08:21 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: the db rows in the instance action table are not marked as deleted | |
| 17:08:26 | bauzas | OK, that's then expected behavioour and not a bug | |
| 17:08:41 | sean-k-mooney | ok and you just want them to be marked as deleted when the new config opiton is set | |
| 17:08:49 | bauzas | given the records aren't marked as soft-deleted, you can retrieve them thru the API | |
| 17:09:07 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah he wants the records to not be showable | |
| 17:09:12 | sean-k-mooney | yes you should be able too | |
| 17:09:19 | pslestang | and on nova db purge the data are remove from sahdow table and there is a if in the code for instance action to rely on updated_at instead of deleted_at | |
| 17:09:35 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: yes that's it | |
| 17:09:40 | bauzas | he prefers data consistency over API | |
| 17:10:02 | pslestang | bauzas: exact | |
| 17:10:10 | bauzas | well, 'he' being OVH, not pslestang I guess :) | |
| 17:10:21 | sean-k-mooney | well its not really a consitency issue | |
| 17:10:33 | sean-k-mooney | they are two differnece reseoucces | |
| 17:10:40 | sean-k-mooney | the instnace and the instnace actions | |
| 17:10:51 | bauzas | pslestang: do you understand that you won't be able to investigate an instance deletion thru the API if you mark the action records as soft-deleted ? | |
| 17:10:55 | sean-k-mooney | the sate of the instnace does not modify the sate of the actions | |
| 17:11:01 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: agreed | |