| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-05-17 | |||
| 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 | |
| 14:59:08 | gibi | we need to extend resize_server to make the wait | |
| 15:00:31 | gibi | there is even something called as a validation resource to be passed around | |
| 15:01:57 | gibi | ... I'm putting something together... | |
| 15:03:15 | sean-k-mooney | i tought it was passed to waiters.wait_for_server_status | |
| 15:04:05 | sean-k-mooney | hum perhaps not | |
| 15:04:24 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: it was not ment to be specific to create server | |
| 15:05:13 | sean-k-mooney | we have the genirc waiters https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/817635/15/tempest/common/waiters.py#576 | |
| 15:06:23 | sean-k-mooney | but ya its not plumed into the wait for status waiter at leas not in that patch | |
| 15:06:42 | gibi | yeah it is complicated as you need ssh set up including networking and keyts | |
| 15:06:45 | gibi | keys | |
| 15:07:15 | sean-k-mooney | yep the pingable version was ment to aovid that | |
| 15:07:27 | sean-k-mooney | you still need sec groups and network config | |
| 15:07:34 | sean-k-mooney | but slightly less overhead | |
| 15:08:01 | sean-k-mooney | in anycase it makes sense why resize is still flaky | |
| 15:09:04 | gibi | yepp | |
| 15:13:37 | bauzas | reminder : nova meeting in 47 mins here | |
| 15:15:04 | gmann | bauzas: sean-k-mooney: I am on same page for key generation things 1. remove only key generation support 2. keep 'type' as it is | |
| 15:15:16 | bauzas | ++ | |
| 15:19:19 | gmann | gibi: sean-k-mooney I am not surprise on c9s job unstable. | |
| 15:19:21 | gibi | sean-k-mooney, kashyap, gmann: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/842140 | |
| 15:19:44 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: do you know why that was made voting? | |
| 15:20:00 | sean-k-mooney | i was not expecting to have a voting job yet | |
| 15:20:12 | gmann | gibi: sean-k-mooney but we should not make SSH-able by deafult in base class for all test but 842140 approach is good | |
| 15:20:36 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: because it was passing and we want to see how long it will :)as non voting goes unmonitored | |
| 15:21:01 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: right but for nova we had said we did want it to be voting intially at the ptg | |
| 15:21:08 | gmann | gibi: sean-k-mooney I think we can do those grep for detach and make them SSH-able. I tried to do in that series but might not have finished | |
| 15:21:14 | sean-k-mooney | so i was surpsed ot see it in the nova gate | |
| 15:21:33 | sean-k-mooney | sicne we had not got around to creating the nova-next centos job yet | |
| 15:21:50 | sean-k-mooney | but i guess the templats got updated? | |
| 15:21:58 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: you mean 'did not want it to be voting' if 'did want it to be voting' ? | |
| 15:22:28 | gibi | actually I'm fine that is voting, this way we are forced to fix these missing waiters | |
| 15:22:36 | sean-k-mooney | we intially did not want he centos job to be voting in nova. i was suggesting adding one based on nova-next | |
| 15:22:49 | kashyap | gibi: Oh, cool | |
| 15:22:50 | kashyap | wait_until in ("SSHABLE", "PINGABLE") and | |
| 15:22:51 | kashyap | CONF.validation.run_validation | |
| 15:23:00 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: well im ok with it but i was expecting use to let it bake for a while | |
| 15:23:28 | gmann | if detach things is only failing we ill keep identified the test waiting for SSH-able or can grep in advance. | |
| 15:23:39 | gmann | and if more other failure start then we can think of making it non voting/ | |
| 15:24:14 | gibi | gmann: ack | |
| 15:25:44 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: gibi actully i guess the issue is i missed this https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/ed3abea3b239044bf72277d548da5e2277aed8f5 | |
| 15:26:19 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: i did not think we had added centos based testing in or check/gate pipeline yet at all | |
| 15:26:45 | sean-k-mooney | so when i brought it up in the ptg i was epecting to let it bake for a few months | |
| 15:26:52 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: yeah, centos stream is first we are trying i think and c9s as voting | |
| 15:26:56 | sean-k-mooney | before making it voting | |
| 15:27:27 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: is this happing in other project too | |
| 15:27:51 | gmann | but I am not saying we have to it is like if they are stable we keep them voting and if unstable and no help from centos community then we can think of removing the distro testing frmo testing runtime. example opensuse | |
| 15:27:55 | sean-k-mooney | because we wanted to add it to nova to test very speicific things namely newer libvirt and q35 by defualt | |
| 15:28:26 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: happening failure or making it voitng? | |
| 15:28:30 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: the testing runtime dose not define what os we test on in the indivigual projects | |
| 15:29:00 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: we define minimum expectation of testing and those are needed to be stable as base distro or QA support | |
| 15:29:04 | sean-k-mooney | as in centos being listed in the testing runtime has never ment that nova or neutron tested with it | |
| 15:29:56 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: centos has been in the pti for years but it was only added to nova in yoga by gibis patch | |
| 15:30:02 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: it is not like that, it is meant as a minimum expectation from every project but as devstack itself and our CI/CD is mostly on ubuntu we are doing that only and centos etc are mostly tested in tripleo or so | |