| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-07-27 | |||
| 09:44:13 | kashyap | gibi: Thank you! Now to figure out the backports | |
| 09:44:41 | gibi | I expect it to be painless as you have a well contained change | |
| 09:48:56 | kashyap | Yeah, checking | |
| 09:49:21 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: or bauzas - Can you put it through, pls - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851034 | |
| 09:49:55 | bauzas | ack | |
| 09:51:40 | kashyap | bauzas: Just for info: the above code was functionally (in a real env) tested by Red Hat support folks | |
| 09:54:39 | kashyap | gibi: Heh, Yoga backport itself has conflicts :D /me goes to look | |
| 09:54:51 | kashyap | It's simple, though | |
| 09:58:23 | opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851202 | |
| 10:00:27 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove the PowerVM driver https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/850346 | |
| 10:09:38 | bauzas | kashyap: -1 just for the relnote https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851034 | |
| 10:10:05 | bauzas | I could accept this change, but I'd change the note to use 'feature' and not 'upgrade' | |
| 10:10:48 | bauzas | so given we're not close to the deadline, that's why I'm asking just for this nit | |
| 10:11:21 | bauzas | at least for operators looking at our releasenotes | |
| 10:11:51 | kashyap | bauzas: FWIW, I've actually seen other rel-notes for such things and chose the 'upgrade' thing | |
| 10:11:54 | kashyap | bauzas: As this is mostly useful during that scenario | |
| 10:12:39 | sean-k-mooney[m] | both points are valid | |
| 10:12:53 | opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/xena: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851205 | |
| 10:12:59 | bauzas | kashyap: https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/releasenotes.html?highlight=reno#when-a-release-note-is-needed | |
| 10:13:00 | sean-k-mooney[m] | it is a new feature but its also a workaround that is only usefule for upgrades and limited other cases | |
| 10:13:17 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney[m]: bauzas: I could use "other" flag, then | |
| 10:13:37 | bauzas | kashyap: honestly, my thought is just about operators looking at our notes | |
| 10:13:40 | bauzas | I know some of them | |
| 10:13:50 | kashyap | bauzas: Yeah, I get that | |
| 10:13:52 | bauzas | in general, they look at two sections | |
| 10:13:54 | kashyap | bauzas: How about "other", then? | |
| 10:14:06 | bauzas | kashyap: if you want | |
| 10:14:18 | bauzas | my only concern was about the 'upgrade' section | |
| 10:14:24 | kashyap | bauzas: Just vote - you and Sean :) | |
| 10:14:33 | bauzas | as I was saying, operators look at two sections | |
| 10:14:34 | kashyap | "feature" or "other" | |
| 10:14:48 | kashyap | I'll respin right away (inncluding the backports) | |
| 10:15:18 | bauzas | they look at the prelude section (for knowing what we have) and at the upgrade section (to know what they need to verify) | |
| 10:15:41 | bauzas | here, they don't need to verify anything | |
| 10:15:45 | bauzas | hence my concern | |
| 10:16:00 | bauzas | kashyap: about 'feature' or 'other', meh. | |
| 10:17:55 | kashyap | bauzas: Sure, I'll go w/ 'feature' | |
| 10:18:03 | bauzas | thanks | |
| 10:18:22 | bauzas | appreciated | |
| 10:20:23 | opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851034 | |
| 10:20:51 | opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851202 | |
| 10:21:29 | opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/xena: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851205 | |
| 10:31:29 | kashyap | bauzas: --^ | |
| 10:31:42 | bauzas | kashyap: you're late | |
| 10:31:46 | kashyap | Hehe | |
| 10:31:54 | kashyap | Thank you! | |
| 10:32:32 | kashyap | bauzas: Can you also ACK the backports, then, please? | |
| 10:32:43 | bauzas | I can | |
| 10:34:16 | kashyap | Thx | |
| 10:34:35 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney[m]: Unrelated - I see this is still active, can you pls ACK this too: "[nova/libvirt] Support for checking and enabling SMM when needed | |
| 10:34:38 | kashyap | " | |
| 10:34:39 | kashyap | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/849610 | |
| 10:35:02 | kashyap | (Cc: gibi) | |
| 10:36:42 | opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/wallaby: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851206 | |
| 10:40:28 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: i wasnt going to review teh wallaby backport until the xena one had merged | |
| 10:40:35 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/849676 | |
| 10:40:36 | kashyap | Sure | |
| 10:40:45 | kashyap | But it's the same thing | |
| 10:41:09 | sean-k-mooney | yes but it cant merge until that one does so i review them in order | |
| 10:41:12 | kashyap | Sigh, also this stable/yoga backport is not merged yet - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845045 (libvirt: Add a workaround to skip compareCPU() on destination | |
| 10:41:15 | kashyap | ) | |
| 10:41:23 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Oh, sure | |
| 11:44:54 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Allow unshelve to a specific host (Compute API part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/831507 | |
| 11:45:01 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Allow unshelve to a specific host (REST API part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845897 | |
| 11:45:06 | gibi | \o/ | |
| 11:46:51 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: gibi how do we want to proceed with the mock change? | |
| 11:46:58 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: good question | |
| 11:47:13 | sean-k-mooney | im kind of sad that we chose to delay it last cycle | |
| 11:47:16 | sean-k-mooney | to drop 3.6 | |
| 11:47:18 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I'm not sure I will have enough time today to try to fix the duplicate mock issue | |
| 11:47:27 | sean-k-mooney | and now we added 3.10 which is causing other issues | |
| 11:47:40 | gibi | I don't know if stephenfin looked at it yet or not | |
| 11:49:19 | gibi | I can be convinced to let it land and fix the 310 issue separately I just affraid that we will forget about it and only realize it again when we want to make the py310 job votinh | |
| 11:49:23 | gibi | g | |
| 11:50:18 | sean-k-mooney | ya thats a valid concen | |
| 11:50:32 | sean-k-mooney | the 3.10 fixes shoudl be a seperate patch in my opipion | |
| 11:50:41 | sean-k-mooney | it would be nice ot have it in the seriese | |
| 11:50:42 | gibi | I agree with that | |
| 11:50:49 | sean-k-mooney | but not sure how much work it is | |
| 11:51:02 | sean-k-mooney | im also not partically happy with the decision they made in 3.10 | |
| 11:51:03 | gibi | me neither but I feel like it is not a oneliner | |
| 11:51:31 | sean-k-mooney | double mocking is perhaps ineffenct but i think it should be allowed | |
| 11:51:48 | sean-k-mooney | so im sad they made that breakign change | |
| 11:52:32 | gibi | lets wait for stephenfin to chime in. Also I can try to look into it tomorrow to see how big is the issue | |
| 11:52:36 | gibi | then we can reconsider | |
| 11:52:48 | sean-k-mooney | we might need to add a helper funciton that check if its mocked and only create a new mock if not | |
| 11:52:59 | gibi | I would go and remove the duplicates if possible | |
| 11:53:08 | gibi | but I don't know how hard that will be | |
| 11:53:17 | sean-k-mooney | yes if we can do that once | |
| 11:53:25 | sean-k-mooney | then we will never hit this again because it will fail | |
| 11:53:35 | gibi | the helper feels like a coverup | |
| 11:54:00 | sean-k-mooney | im just worried about loading the context of is this mocked | |
| 11:54:27 | sean-k-mooney | again with the new behaivor it shoudl be obvious i guess because it will fail | |
| 11:54:34 | gibi | yeah | |
| 11:56:48 | sean-k-mooney | i just hope this does not cause shared global state | |
| 11:57:11 | sean-k-mooney | the fixture should be set up for every test | |
| 11:57:37 | sean-k-mooney | but we likely will have to replace part of them in the test where its double mocking | |
| 11:58:02 | sean-k-mooney | as i feel like we double mock somethimes when the fixture does not provide exactly what we want | |
| 11:58:09 | sean-k-mooney | i know i have done that at least once | |
| 11:58:32 | gibi | yes, I think that is the "normal" case when we double mock. I did that before | |