| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-07-17 | |||
| 17:20:20 | dansmith | so that could be the common link | |
| 17:31:26 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: it depend if we raise and excption we woudl ant it to stop the agent form startign right | |
| 17:31:49 | sean-k-mooney | i think that is ok for invalid config i.e. enabling this if the min version is not met | |
| 17:38:40 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Delete dangling bdms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882284 | |
| 17:48:11 | auniyal | this: https://review.opendev.org/q/Ia198f712e2ad277743aed08e27e480208f463ac7 | |
| 17:48:11 | auniyal | you meant until "enable validations in nova-lvm" get merged in zed right ? | |
| 17:48:11 | auniyal | here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882914 | |
| 17:48:11 | auniyal | hi elodilles | |
| 17:51:50 | auniyal | dansmith , melwitt can these get merged https://review.opendev.org/q/Ia198f712e2ad277743aed08e27e480208f463ac7 ? | |
| 17:54:14 | melwitt | auniyal: yeah I can review | |
| 19:35:35 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/wallaby: Remove deleted projects from flavor access list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/888333 | |
| 19:37:33 | elodilles | auniyal: yes, those are the gate fixing patches | |
| 19:50:11 | auniyal | thanks melwitt, ack elodilles | |
| 19:50:47 | auniyal | stable/2023.1 will be merged in some time, can you please merge this as well - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/888230 | |
| 19:57:08 | auniyal | melwitt, regarding your comment https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873648/comment/e8d05cbb_aa954e91/ in "Added context manager for instance lock" as per lyarwood Note we need to create new context to unlock the instance. | |
| 19:59:06 | melwitt | auniyal: yeah, we'll do that one next | |
| 19:59:52 | melwitt | auniyal: oh, hm. sorry I didn't notice that comment, on the surface, I'm not sure why we would need or want a new request-id for the unlock | |
| 20:00:07 | melwitt | so let me think on that for a bit | |
| 20:00:23 | auniyal | ack, thanks, will fix rest meanwhile | |
| 20:00:34 | melwitt | ++ | |
| 20:02:05 | auniyal | if you have time today, can you have another look on resize one as well; I think its somewhat better now; I have documented alot in it for now intentionally will remove them once good from review side. | |
| 20:02:41 | melwitt | ok, I'll try to get to that today | |
| 20:46:53 | melwitt | auniyal: I just added another comment on the review. thanks for pointing out about the unique request-id's | |
| 21:12:29 | dansmith | auniyal: can you please respond to all comments and/or mark them as resolved when they're no longer relevant? You never responded to my question about needing to target in one place and not another, pushed up another rev, and asked me to re-review.. | |
| 21:12:45 | dansmith | it's hard to know whether you intended to change what I commented about because the old comment had no reply and is still unresolved, on a nonsense line in the new patcheset now | |
| 22:20:47 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/train: Enforce quota usage from placement when unshelving https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/888509 | |
| 23:44:46 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Add config option to configure TB cache size https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/868419 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2023-07-18 | |||
| 00:25:56 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2023.1: enable validations in nova-lvm https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/887674 | |
| 07:22:51 | bauzas | good morning nova | |
| 07:41:14 | kashyap | gibi: Morning | |
| 07:41:28 | kashyap | gibi: So, here's the one failure: from my patch : https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/a151d31cbcf74a648e1948986686d08a | |
| 07:41:34 | kashyap | "Something" seems off | |
| 07:47:54 | gibi | looking | |
| 08:08:19 | gibi | kashyap: left a comment, I think the test case can be removed | |
| 08:08:29 | kashyap | gibi: You read my mind! | |
| 08:09:03 | kashyap | I was thinking the same thing | |
| 08:19:39 | gibi | it is ceartanly easier to read others mind if they are looking at the same ~10 lines of code :) | |
| 08:22:50 | bauzas | gibi: kashyap: do I understand there is a CI failure ? | |
| 08:23:02 | kashyap | gibi: Haha | |
| 08:23:17 | kashyap | bauzas: We were talking about a specific patch change - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/887255 | |
| 08:23:26 | kashyap | (The failure there is expected due to a now-invalid test) | |
| 08:24:06 | bauzas | ah oooof, ok :) | |
| 08:37:36 | opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: Bump MIN_{LIBVIRT,QEMU} for "Bobcat" https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/887255 | |
| 09:04:35 | kashyap | gibi: --^ Fixed | |
| 09:25:58 | gibi | added some cleanup requests inline but other than that it looks good | |
| 10:03:09 | kashyap | Ah, I missed a few more; good catch! I will fix them too | |
| 10:03:12 | kashyap | Thank you. | |
| 10:12:27 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Added context manager for instance lock https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873648 | |
| 10:14:41 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Added context manager for instance lock https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873648 | |
| 10:33:58 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Added context manager for instance lock https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873648 | |
| 10:33:59 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Disconnecting volume from the compute host https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/877446 | |
| 12:15:04 | stephenfin | bauzas: sean-k-mooney: gibi: Think one of you could add https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880669/ and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/886230/ to your review list? | |
| 12:22:00 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: im +2w on the first patch im not sure about the job | |
| 12:22:11 | sean-k-mooney | im ok wiht addign it but im not sure it should be voting | |
| 12:22:44 | sean-k-mooney | since we are ignoring upper constraits by using both oslo.db and sqlachemy form master/main | |
| 12:46:26 | gibi | yeah I agree with sean-k-mooney on both patch | |
| 13:03:30 | opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: Bump MIN_{LIBVIRT,QEMU} for "Bobcat" https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/887255 | |
| 13:49:07 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: gibi: The issue is that we are currently SQLAlchemy 2.x compatible and don't want to regress. However, people don't look at non-voting jobs so they're effectively useless for anti-regression purposes IMO | |
| 13:50:06 | stephenfin | There is of course a risk that SQLAlchemy could introduce a breaking change but if we're serious about being ready for SQLA 2.x by C then we'll need to handle those issues. Also, SQLA is super mature so the chances of that seem minute, while we can simply toggle it to non-voting if they inadvertently introduce a bug | |
| 13:52:54 | stephenfin | Also also, I've proposed the same thing for ironic, cinder, placement, and a few others. Neutron are running all their functional tests with sqlalchemy master for some time now. I think the benefits outweigh the concerns | |
| 13:56:21 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I quite agree with stephenfin, let's KISS | |
| 13:56:28 | bauzas | we also have other jobs | |
| 13:58:52 | bauzas | but -1 b/c of the gate | |
| 13:59:56 | dansmith | could we not just make the 310 job SA 2.0 and leafve the 3.9 one as it is? having another job seems excessive to me | |
| 14:00:36 | sean-k-mooney | i would prefer to just raise our min version to 2.0 | |
| 14:00:40 | auniyal | hi dansmith, sorry for not responding on your question on time before new revision, yes as you mentioned in comment, on melwitt suggestion, I passed the context from caller and did not created new context and I added the assert. as per suggestion. Actually I had the reply on draft but was waiting for CI job to pass that time. | |
| 14:00:54 | sean-k-mooney | but ya i can also live with dansmith suggestion i guess | |
| 14:01:01 | gibi | yeah, if we want to track 2.0 then lets bump now to 2.0 | |
| 14:01:05 | dansmith | we're really running three functional jobs and it seems like we could just re-use one to move forward | |
| 14:01:34 | sean-k-mooney | could we bump the uc for py3.10 specificaly to 2.0 | |
| 14:01:55 | sean-k-mooney | then we could follow the same pattern in all project | |
| 14:02:09 | dansmith | can we do that? if so that'd also work I suppose | |
| 14:02:12 | sean-k-mooney | or as i said just move nova to 2.0 | |
| 14:02:23 | dansmith | I mean I know requirements.txt can do it, but will a bot complain? | |
| 14:02:33 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: we can we used ot do it for py2.7 vs py 3 | |
| 14:02:42 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: we can't move nova to *require* 2.0 right now | |
| 14:02:55 | dansmith | because it would mean nova can't be installed on the same machine as keystone, for example | |
| 14:03:17 | stephenfin | we can't bump to 2.0 in requirements.txt - the requirements check job won't let us (co-installability) | |
| 14:03:27 | stephenfin | i.e. what dansmith said | |
| 14:03:46 | sean-k-mooney | i ment in the reqiuremetns repo | |
| 14:04:00 | sean-k-mooney | can we increases the cap to 2.0 for py3.10 | |
| 14:04:07 | dansmith | yeah, can't do that until everyone can use 2.0 but we're not ready for that | |
| 14:04:09 | sean-k-mooney | i guess that could break devstack jobs | |
| 14:04:17 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 14:04:19 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: manila still isn't compatible, nor is masakari and a few other projects | |
| 14:04:31 | dansmith | nor keystone, last I checked | |
| 14:04:47 | sean-k-mooney | ok so i guess looping back to dansmith suggestion of just doing this in one of the existing job | |
| 14:04:55 | sean-k-mooney | its that prefer or having the extra job | |
| 14:05:03 | bauzas | ok cool with me too | |
| 14:05:16 | gibi | OK with me to force py310 to run with 2.0 | |
| 14:05:32 | dansmith | I just think the actual likelihood of breakages between 3.9 and 3.10 is minor, so using 3.10 as our 2.0 job makes frugal sense, | |
| 14:05:40 | stephenfin | Also, we can't just reuse a job unless we want to get rid of our use of job templates | |
| 14:05:44 | dansmith | and we can probably spot the difference between SA problems and some python base issue | |
| 14:05:54 | dansmith | stephenfin: ah, you're right | |
| 14:06:05 | dansmith | fine, fine, just stack another job I guess | |
| 14:06:06 | stephenfin | because it's the job templates that specifies our use of openstack-tox-whatever | |
| 14:06:24 | dansmith | yup | |
| 14:06:33 | bauzas | ~o~ | |
| 14:07:09 | stephenfin | ack, with any luck it should be gone in 3 months or so 🤞 hopefully sooner but definitely in C | |
| 14:07:09 | stephenfin | ack, with any luck it should be gone in 3 months or so 🤞 hopefully sooner but definitely in C | |