| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-05-17 | |||
| 11:54:13 | sean-k-mooney | just finsihing a spec review but ill be doen shortly | |
| 12:25:16 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: +1 some nits and one question inline but im more or less +2 | |
| 12:30:43 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: thanks. I can trim down the required / forbidden traits tag to just having ``traits`` and implement required traits now similar in the first round. We can see if we need forbidden traits later ever | |
| 12:32:30 | sean-k-mooney | im not pushed really either way i was just thinkign about it as one filed wiht forbiden triat modedl with a - or ! if supproted | |
| 12:33:01 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think its much work to supprot forbidien traits so i dont really see any harm in including it | |
| 12:33:08 | sean-k-mooney | it wont expand scope that much | |
| 12:33:35 | sean-k-mooney | if other are ok with what you ahve propsoed im fine to upgrade to +2 | |
| 12:33:53 | sean-k-mooney | but i want to wait of melwitt and stephenfin to comment | |
| 12:34:06 | gibi | sure, lets see what the others think | |
| 12:34:13 | gibi | and thanks again for the review | |
| 12:34:38 | sean-k-mooney | no worreis. thanks for volenterring to take this on :) | |
| 12:34:47 | gibi | :) | |
| 12:44:35 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Microversion 2.91: Support specifying destination host to unshelve https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/831651 | |
| 13:01:31 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: i assume you are respining the keypair spec | |
| 13:07:57 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yes, I was about to ping you and gmann | |
| 13:08:08 | bauzas | about the x508 type | |
| 13:08:26 | bauzas | I think we should continue to accept this parameter | |
| 13:09:29 | sean-k-mooney | for listing | |
| 13:09:36 | sean-k-mooney | not for generation right | |
| 13:10:28 | sean-k-mooney | so we will keep type for show and import | |
| 13:10:42 | sean-k-mooney | but remove generation for all types in the microversion | |
| 13:11:36 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: you can import a x508 public key https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/972c06c608f0b00e9066d7f581fd81197065cf49/nova/api/openstack/compute/keypairs.py#L105 | |
| 13:11:43 | sean-k-mooney | yes i know | |
| 13:11:56 | sean-k-mooney | that was never in doubt at least in my mind | |
| 13:12:16 | bauzas | if so, we create a fingerprint | |
| 13:12:25 | sean-k-mooney | i was not sure if we could generate them but we can | |
| 13:12:37 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: you can generate them too | |
| 13:12:43 | sean-k-mooney | yes i know i found the code | |
| 13:12:50 | sean-k-mooney | so i dont want the capablities to differ per type | |
| 13:12:56 | bauzas | yes | |
| 13:13:08 | bauzas | so I'll remove this in the spec | |
| 13:13:08 | sean-k-mooney | so i dont want to kep generateion for x509 but drop it for ssh in teh new microverion | |
| 13:13:13 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 13:13:22 | sean-k-mooney | so we will remvoe generation for all types | |
| 13:13:31 | sean-k-mooney | but keep type in the api for import and list | |
| 13:13:37 | sean-k-mooney | correct? | |
| 13:13:50 | sean-k-mooney | and keep the generation code for older microverions | |
| 13:14:58 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yes, just stoping to accept no public key | |
| 13:15:11 | bauzas | by the new microversion, yes | |
| 13:15:28 | sean-k-mooney | that works for me | |
| 13:29:50 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Proposes to remove keypair generation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/840217 | |
| 13:54:23 | kashyap | gibi: FFS, now CentOS9S seem to fail this - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/838926 | |
| 13:54:41 | kashyap | I just can't seem to get rid off my back | |
| 13:55:17 | kashyap | It's another unrelated random timeout: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/bcaf2154eeb545cdb7907d0c807513e9 | |
| 14:23:19 | gibi | kashyap: that was another disk detach issue | |
| 14:31:00 | sean-k-mooney | should we make the c9s job non-voting | |
| 14:31:12 | sean-k-mooney | i have seen that fail quite offen with the detach issue | |
| 14:34:33 | kashyap | gibi: Oh, damn; is that a real one? | |
| 14:35:03 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Yeah, we should until that known issue is resolved. I wonder if others disagree | |
| 14:35:04 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: i dont think its realated to your patch if that is what you are asking | |
| 14:35:17 | gibi | I think we are still in the progress of landing the tempest patches that adds the waiter unit the guest boots up | |
| 14:35:26 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: but device detach is really really falky on centos 9 | |
| 14:35:31 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: No; I was asking if it's an unrelated new issue :) | |
| 14:35:40 | gibi | it is not new | |
| 14:35:47 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: its unrelated to your patch | |
| 14:35:47 | gibi | and it is not related to your patch | |
| 14:36:01 | kashyap | (Yep, noted) | |
| 14:38:00 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: i tought the tempest chagnes were landed on master | |
| 14:39:36 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:wait_until_sshable_pingable | |
| 14:39:57 | sean-k-mooney | so https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/817772? | |
| 14:41:07 | sean-k-mooney | hum tempest.api.compute.volumes.test_attach_volume.AttachVolumeMultiAttachTest | |
| 14:41:09 | sean-k-mooney | is what failed | |
| 14:41:14 | sean-k-mooney | so maybe that is not useing that yet | |
| 14:42:02 | sean-k-mooney | apprently it is https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/tempest/api/compute/volumes/test_attach_volume.py | |
| 14:42:55 | sean-k-mooney | perhaps test_resize_server_with_multiattached_volume is not | |
| 14:43:00 | gibi | I noted this particular failure in https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1960346/comments/29 | |
| 14:43:25 | sean-k-mooney | ah | |
| 14:43:27 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/tempest/api/compute/volumes/test_attach_volume.py#L495= | |
| 14:43:46 | sean-k-mooney | so we need to wait after that resize | |
| 14:43:55 | gibi | after resize we only wait for ACTIVE state then go and detach | |
| 14:43:58 | sean-k-mooney | or in teh resize call we need to wait for it to be sshable again | |
| 14:44:02 | gibi | yepp | |
| 14:44:03 | sean-k-mooney | ya | |
| 14:44:37 | sean-k-mooney | ok i dont see a patch for that in the seriese at least not on the topic | |
| 14:44:50 | sean-k-mooney | but that makes sense why this is still failing | |
| 14:44:51 | gibi | probably it is easier to grep for detach calls and put a wait before them | |
| 14:45:28 | gibi | gmann: fyi ^^ https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1960346/comments/29 | |
| 14:45:39 | sean-k-mooney | perhaps | |
| 14:45:47 | sean-k-mooney | so we could put a wait here https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/569c7a89f54c94494fde46ce2aa4fbd26492e640/tempest/api/compute/base.py#L459-L469= | |
| 14:46:07 | sean-k-mooney | or | |
| 14:46:12 | sean-k-mooney | we could put a wait here https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/569c7a89f54c94494fde46ce2aa4fbd26492e640/tempest/api/compute/base.py#L547= | |
| 14:46:14 | sean-k-mooney | in detach | |
| 14:47:25 | sean-k-mooney | if we do it in detach it shoudl alway ensure that we check its sshabel when we are about to detach but we woudl likely need a flag to hadnel teh vm state | |
| 14:47:30 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. if its not active | |
| 14:48:29 | gibi | yeah | |
| 14:49:25 | sean-k-mooney | personally while i dont really liek the wackamole approch i would prefer not to put it in detach | |
| 14:49:49 | sean-k-mooney | so put it in reszie ectra as those operations already have the instance and are changing the state | |
| 14:52:37 | gibi | but not all VM lifecycle operation, not all resize, will be followed by a detach | |
| 14:53:03 | gibi | so it is a waste to wait if no detach is done later | |
| 14:53:05 | sean-k-mooney | yes but we could wait in all cases whre we expect the vm to be active | |
| 14:53:59 | sean-k-mooney | ya so it a questoin of how much knolage we want the autor and review of tempest chagne to need | |
| 14:54:18 | sean-k-mooney | we can be extra safe and alway wait when ever we expect a vm to be active | |
| 14:54:29 | sean-k-mooney | or we can put it in only when we expect to do a detach | |
| 14:54:52 | sean-k-mooney | in which case we shoudl not modify resize or detach and just add the wait in the respective tests | |
| 14:56:49 | sean-k-mooney | i think the pattern they are taking is to pass sshable to wait_until | |
| 14:56:56 | sean-k-mooney | and do that at the call site | |
| 14:57:31 | sean-k-mooney | as was done here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/840112/2/tempest/api/compute/base.py | |
| 14:57:53 | sean-k-mooney | so we woudl add wait_until='ACTIVE' a paramater to resize | |
| 14:58:11 | sean-k-mooney | and pass wait_until='SSHABLE' in that test that is failing when we call resize_server | |
| 14:58:25 | gibi | I think that wait_until thing is specificly for create_server | |