Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2025-02-04
16:50:42 bauzas and feature freeze is in 3 weeks too
16:51:18 bauzas the main reason why we have that approval freeze is for making sure we have enough capacity to review all the already approved ones
16:51:55 MengyangZhang[m] understood sorry i was away for two weeks, so i will need to resubmit it for 2025-02?
16:51:57 bauzas that wouldn't be fair to unprioritize some reviews by looking at some other patch, whatever big it is
16:52:06 r-taketn sean-k-mooney: thanks, and sorry, i have not checked it.
16:52:17 bauzas MengyangZhang[m]: unfortunately yes
16:52:36 MengyangZhang[m] okk will do
16:53:00 bauzas thanks
16:53:04 bauzas I guess we're done then
16:53:06 bauzas thanks all
16:53:09 MengyangZhang[m] do i need to re-attend nova meeting once that's updated?
16:53:09 sean-k-mooney MengyangZhang[m]: the folder is already created and the specs for next cycle are open for review, so this could be done early next cycle
16:53:53 sean-k-mooney not nessisarly we can just review it once its posted
16:54:02 MengyangZhang[m] okk thanks!
16:54:29 bauzas MengyangZhang[m]: you don't need to attend the meeting in person, but please add it in our agenda for asking for a specless blueprint when you want
16:55:03 MengyangZhang[m] ok do you have a link to the agenda?
16:55:26 bauzas https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova#Agenda_for_next_meeting
16:55:39 MengyangZhang[m] thanks!
16:55:42 bauzas just add it in the open discussion and request for a specless blueprint approval
16:56:56 bauzas see the documentation here for trivial features approval https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/readme.html#trivial-specifications
16:57:30 bauzas or ping me whenever you want
16:57:38 bauzas anyway, we're almost at time
16:57:43 MengyangZhang[m] thanks!
16:57:44 bauzas anything anyone ?
16:58:08 bauzas then thanks all
16:58:12 opendevmeet Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-02-04-16.03.log.html
16:58:12 opendevmeet Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-02-04-16.03.txt
16:58:12 opendevmeet Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-02-04-16.03.html
16:58:12 opendevmeet Meeting ended Tue Feb 4 16:58:12 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
16:58:12 bauzas #endmeeting
16:58:22 r-taketn Thank you for discussing.
16:58:26 elodilles thanks o/
16:58:31 gibi thanks forlks
16:58:36 gibi and folks even :)
16:58:41 fwiesel Thanks
16:58:43 masahito thanks everyone
17:00:03 sean-k-mooney MengyangZhang[m]: i suspect the current impletion is missing some fucntionatliy to ensure the compute node supprot the feature when we have a mix os openstack version on different compute nodes by the way
17:00:16 sean-k-mooney MengyangZhang[m]:the existin spec does not cover that properlys.
17:00:28 sean-k-mooney ill leave a comment to that effect on teh current one.
17:02:07 ratailor sean-k-mooney, gibi I have to leave now, its too late for me. I will update the patch tomorrow and we can discuss then.
17:02:12 masahito gibi sean-k-mooney: if you have time, please review this bug fix again. The new patchset returns null at list API in both no pinned az case and no request spec case. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939658
17:02:22 gibi ratailor: sure. I also don't have time right now to load context there
17:02:36 ratailor gibi, sean-k-mooney ack. Thanks!
17:02:50 sean-k-mooney gibi: ratailor i suggested just adding additional_properties=True
17:03:17 gibi sean-k-mooney: I think stephenfin was against that
17:03:42 sean-k-mooney if we cna restrict that only a filed called properties in the image object then that woudl be better
17:03:44 gibi and I also would like to be at least specific on the level of string keys, with length check
17:03:47 gibi and charset check
17:04:13 sean-k-mooney we could do that
17:04:24 sean-k-mooney what i want to avoid is listing the speicic image properties
17:04:56 sean-k-mooney specicicly becasue adding a new image property is not an api change today so we should not encode the set of options in the respocne schema
17:06:03 sean-k-mooney but im ok with encodeign some general restrictions. image properties are not free from so its less problatic then other files but we can still do some level fo validation
17:06:49 gibi yeah, lets try to be strict about having a field "properties" and that it is an object with string key values with some length and charset requirements
17:07:00 gibi I think we have example of such schema pieces already
17:07:16 sean-k-mooney ack probaly server metadata?
17:09:33 gibi yeah that is a good candidate
17:10:45 sean-k-mooney im not sure if the schema for that has merged or not but its the clsoet i can think of. the server tags api is not key:value if i recall, aggreate metadata woudl be another option to look at too
17:14:03 gibi jsonschema is OK with a field called properties https://paste.opendev.org/show/b8Vs43sf3PThcDuMbjIn/
17:14:15 gibi I will link this to the patch as ratailor is offline...
17:15:13 sean-k-mooney cool, i agree with the restirction you were proposing so can you capture that in your comment also
17:15:29 sean-k-mooney i.e. lenght/charset enforcement
17:18:14 gibi done :)
17:20:14 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Bump InstanceNUMACell version after data migration https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940604
17:20:14 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reproduce bug/2097359 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940603
17:24:36 opendevreview Fabian Wiesel proposed openstack/nova master: Re-raise exception for failed reboot for error reporting. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940725
17:55:18 gibi Salah Hazaa: I see that you updated my review in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937275 was there any particular reason to do so? I will going to restore my version of that review now...
17:59:35 sean-k-mooney gibi: im kind of confused by there coment with just a sha or change id
17:59:47 sean-k-mooney its not the first time i have seen someone do that recently
18:00:01 sean-k-mooney it makes me wonder if thsoe are bot comments or similar
18:00:53 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: [CI][nova-next]test with placement ac breadth-first https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937275
18:01:03 sean-k-mooney same thing here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/940448/comments/53acb822_bf3e4455
18:01:20 gibi I think the person tried to resolve my review in merge conflict but failed
18:01:45 sean-k-mooney maybe but that does not explian the same behaivor on the requirements patch
18:02:14 gibi yeah
18:02:50 sean-k-mooney and here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/931314
18:04:15 sean-k-mooney to me its sus that they comemnted the same tyep of hash comment on releas eand reqiuremnts patches in 19 seconds appart,
18:05:10 sean-k-mooney the comment on your patch was a few hours later
18:05:12 gibi we can try to reach out to the email the account has on file in gerrit
18:06:59 sean-k-mooney perhaps, frickler also asked about thi son a diffetn review if i recall
18:07:42 gibi anyhow I'm done for today. See you tomorrow o/
18:12:26 sean-k-mooney frickler: it seams to be a recurring pattern where all there comments are a sha or review link of some kind https://review.opendev.org/dashboard/37702
18:15:26 sean-k-mooney often the comment is just the change id or gerrit query url with the change id
18:49:13 bauzas gmann: I counted 23 jobs running on check pipeline for nova
18:50:00 bauzas gmann: I forgot context but I guess we still need to run the two jobs for the old rbacs and the new default policies ?
18:52:01 gmann bauzas: I think we can do only old rbac, I kept new rbac because of cinder still not default to new RBAC but that we can in tempest gate and that should be enough
18:52:09 gmann I will cleanup that today
18:53:19 gmann bauzas: Also, we can run old rbac as periodic. As we are checking periodic jobs in weekly meeting, that should be enough. what you say?
18:57:13 bauzas gmann: yeah I guess we can run old rbac in periodic, provided we get the list of periodics :)
18:57:22 bauzas this time, I wasn't able to get that list :)
19:00:41 gmann ack, will propose change today
19:06:07 mikal sean-k-mooney: good morning. I _think_ that CI should pass on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/926126/12 once the trait merges. The unit tests pass locally for me at least. That said, I haven't done a compute service version bump, is that needed when new hypervisor traits are introduced?
19:07:57 sean-k-mooney ack. its passing for the first 3 patches and the failures do seam to be related to the traits
19:08:15 sean-k-mooney so i agree it shoudl pass when we add the traits
19:08:21 sean-k-mooney and do a release
19:22:02 mikal Any thoughts on if there is anything missing from that sound patch now? If you think its basically complete I'll go spend some time doing the same thing to the USB one.
19:24:14 sean-k-mooney mikal: im going to try and finsih aroudn the top of the hour ill see if i can review it before i do.
19:24:44 mikal sean-k-mooney: cool, thanks. No pressure. If you don't get to it I'll just move onto the USB one anyways and I can always circle back.
19:24:58 sean-k-mooney actully looking at the change files im not seeing a comptue service bump or min version check
19:25:32 mikal Yeah, that's what I was asking above -- I assume I need those, but I haven't done them before. Where are they?
19:26:01 sean-k-mooney if we go the traits route without those we need a addtional change to enforce the trait request.

Earlier   Later