| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-04-08 | |||
| 09:52:44 | mikal | No worries. | |
| 10:04:26 | frickler | fyi openapi is also a topic in the tc session on friday, IIUC mainly a discussion about gtema's codegenerator project | |
| 10:04:46 | frickler | see https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2024-ptg-os-tc#L37 | |
| 10:05:12 | frickler | (note the scheduling might not be final yet) | |
| 10:38:33 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova master: Fix case-sensitivity for metadata keys https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873901 | |
| 11:57:13 | bauzas | wow, our PTG agenda is now pretty packed | |
| 11:57:20 | bauzas | I'll provide an email | |
| 13:01:55 | sean-k-mooney | mikal: o/ | |
| 13:03:39 | sean-k-mooney | mikal: its been a long time since i saw you around these parts how are you? | |
| 14:04:40 | bauzas | folks, the QA team will discuss about grenade skip-level jobs around 14300UTC (ie. in 30 mins by now) https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2024-ptg-qa#L43 | |
| 14:04:49 | bauzas | you may be interested in joining it ^ | |
| 14:21:58 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Fix: migration configuration with cpu_shared_set (libvirt part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/915139 | |
| 14:21:58 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Fix: migration configuration with cpu_shared_set (object part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/903706 | |
| 14:21:59 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Test live migration between hosts with differnet cpu_shared_sets https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/913744 | |
| 14:38:33 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: gibi can ye review this logging patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/898057 i want to merge that to help debugging some numa issues | |
| 14:54:44 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: -1 for a missing test coverage | |
| 14:54:50 | bauzas | but I like your approach | |
| 14:55:26 | sean-k-mooney | ok ill figure out how tot test it | |
| 14:55:37 | sean-k-mooney | if your happy with the approch then that is easy to adresss | |
| 14:56:03 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: oh, that's simple to test, sec | |
| 14:57:15 | bauzas | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/unit/objects/test_objects.py | |
| 14:57:47 | bauzas | here, you can add another fake object that would inherit from your JSONPrintableObjectMixin mixin | |
| 14:57:55 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 14:58:00 | sean-k-mooney | sounds good | |
| 14:58:14 | bauzas | or just amend MyObj | |
| 14:58:31 | bauzas | and add the two test methods for checking the output | |
| 14:58:31 | sean-k-mooney | ill proably inherit form it | |
| 14:58:39 | sean-k-mooney | or duplicate it | |
| 14:58:42 | bauzas | in _BaseTest | |
| 14:58:45 | bauzas | as you want | |
| 14:58:50 | sean-k-mooney | but ill ready over it and see what is simplest | |
| 14:59:05 | bauzas | yup, I just wanted to make sure we double check that we get a dump | |
| 14:59:21 | sean-k-mooney | sure thats tottally valid to ask for. | |
| 14:59:43 | sean-k-mooney | i didnt add it becuase i tought it was trivial enough not to need ti but im tottaly fine with adding tests | |
| 14:59:48 | bauzas | I'm thinking about the RPC compatibility | |
| 14:59:58 | bauzas | I think it will work | |
| 15:00:22 | bauzas | the primitive won't have the mixin in it, so an old compute would just rehydrate the object without the mixin | |
| 15:01:08 | sean-k-mooney | rpc is fine | |
| 15:01:27 | sean-k-mooney | on unupgraded code we will just fall back to the default __str__ impl | |
| 15:01:44 | sean-k-mooney | we are not going to depend on this out side of logs | |
| 15:01:57 | sean-k-mooney | so old code will just log as it does now | |
| 15:02:17 | sean-k-mooney | new code will log the .obj_to_primitive() json dump | |
| 15:02:44 | dansmith | So fwiw, I'd rather us not always dump these as json | |
| 15:03:15 | sean-k-mooney | well i applied them to some of the objects where its needed but perhapse i could make it configuable based on the log level | |
| 15:03:21 | dansmith | it's much harder to read and it's not exactly the same format as we expect in python (null instead of None, no list/set distinction, etc) | |
| 15:03:22 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. only do that if debug | |
| 15:03:38 | dansmith | why not just dump the primitive in specific places if and when you want it? | |
| 15:03:47 | sean-k-mooney | i want it everywhere we log this | |
| 15:03:52 | dansmith | what's the extra thing you're getting out of this that we don't get with the inbuilt dump? | |
| 15:04:08 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 15:04:20 | sean-k-mooney | we just get something<?> or stuff like that | |
| 15:04:29 | sean-k-mooney | for pci request and many of the numa related info | |
| 15:04:52 | dansmith | you get that when a field is unset I think is that what you mean? | |
| 15:06:27 | bauzas | I often used .dumps() for objects and ya got a question mark for unset fields IIRC | |
| 15:06:44 | bauzas | but we can test this quickly | |
| 15:06:45 | sean-k-mooney | it not jsut <?> | |
| 15:06:47 | dansmith | right, which you won't even see in the json dump I think | |
| 15:06:51 | sean-k-mooney | wwe also had requests=[InstancePCIRequest,InstancePCIRequest]) | |
| 15:07:06 | sean-k-mooney | so it does not recursivly print the nested objects | |
| 15:08:08 | dansmith | yeah, which it could do... | |
| 15:08:48 | sean-k-mooney | so i guess i wasnt expecting much push back as this to me is a significant readbility gain | |
| 15:09:17 | sean-k-mooney | we could adress it other wasy but this to mean was a clean an consitent way to make it more readable and support debuggin form logs | |
| 15:09:28 | dansmith | it's a significant readability regression to me :) | |
| 15:09:28 | sean-k-mooney | for the specific objects where the current logging is lacking | |
| 15:11:38 | sean-k-mooney | i guess you would prefer if i modified the list object ot print recurrsivly instead | |
| 15:11:43 | sean-k-mooney | keeping the same format | |
| 15:12:02 | sean-k-mooney | do you know if there is an atribute we would need to apply to do that | |
| 15:12:44 | dansmith | I mean, the reason it doesn't recurse now is just because the dump could end up being super massive and so the decision not to recurse was intentional | |
| 15:13:00 | dansmith | that was at a time where we had many fewer object types and less nesting I'm sure | |
| 15:13:10 | sean-k-mooney | but that often means i cant debug custoemr issues form the logs | |
| 15:13:11 | dansmith | but things like a list of instances would be a massive dump in the logs | |
| 15:13:25 | dansmith | sure, I know | |
| 15:13:33 | sean-k-mooney | i think we shoudl recuse for debug mode | |
| 15:13:40 | sean-k-mooney | but perhaps not for anythign else | |
| 15:13:42 | dansmith | I'm not saying don't make it recursive, I'm just saying it's pretty heavy | |
| 15:13:46 | sean-k-mooney | do you know if we have dont that before? | |
| 15:13:53 | dansmith | not that I know of | |
| 15:14:07 | sean-k-mooney | ok ill pause the patch there then and see if that is possibel | |
| 15:14:15 | sean-k-mooney | if thats an approch you and bauzas prefer | |
| 15:14:39 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: for context i have othen patch in this dumping in the past | |
| 15:14:49 | bauzas | I'm just testing what we get | |
| 15:14:51 | sean-k-mooney | when doing testing locally to repoduce an issue | |
| 15:15:09 | bauzas | so we just jsondump the primitive | |
| 15:15:19 | bauzas | which means for unset attrs that we won't show them | |
| 15:16:29 | bauzas | so yeah I agree with dansmith, we should show all the fields regardless, as it will be easier for ops to know whether we provided the fields or not | |
| 15:31:20 | kashyap | tobias-urdin: Hi, for later - I think this removal of "tunnelled migration" should be merged this cycle (also wrote it on the review): https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/879021 | |
| 15:31:39 | kashyap | tobias-urdin: If you're respinning it for other reasons, please add the deprecation patch URL to the commit message :) | |
| 18:34:47 | tobias-urdin | kashyap: ack, thanks! | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-04-09 | |||
| 06:18:02 | zigo | My first Caracal VM pings ! :) | |
| 06:33:07 | zigo | Tempest is running ... :P | |
| 06:42:44 | opendevreview | Haidong Pang proposed openstack/nova master: Catch MessagingTimeout during evacuation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/915309 | |
| 06:47:34 | opendevreview | Haidong Pang proposed openstack/nova master: Catch MessagingTimeout during evacuation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/915309 | |
| 06:59:01 | opendevreview | Haidong Pang proposed openstack/nova master: Catch MessagingTimeout during evacuation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/915309 | |
| 07:13:40 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: hey Sean... Unfortunately 11pm my time is well past my old man bed time so I missed your message. I'm mostly good, just pottering away on things I think are interesting because I'm not good at being fun. | |
| 07:50:44 | zigo | bauzas: There's no operator feedback session in the Nova PTG schedule this year? | |
| 07:50:58 | zigo | We're in the "public cloud SIG session", and we wonder when we could all join. | |
| 07:51:15 | bauzas | zigo: nope, the TC didn't discussed about it afaik | |
| 07:51:23 | bauzas | I can join if people wany | |
| 07:51:35 | zigo | It's the end of the session ... :/ | |
| 07:52:05 | zigo | We have another session on Thurdsay 14:00 UTC. | |