Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2025-02-04
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.
19:26:07 sean-k-mooney ah am one sec
19:26:40 sean-k-mooney the service version is defiend here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/objects/service.py#L34
19:27:55 mikal Hmmm. Bump twice or bump that at the end after the sound and USB traits have both landed?
19:28:25 sean-k-mooney when we add a new feature tha tneed supprot form the compute manger we add a new constant here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/api.py#L106-L126
19:28:46 sean-k-mooney and then add a check on the relevent api action i.e spawn and rebuild in yoru case
19:29:50 sean-k-mooney so we tend to define a check funciton like this _check_support_vnic_accelerator https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/api.py#L1054C9-L1054C40
19:30:00 mikal Hmmm. How do you define support there? Is that any API request that wants USB or sound, or any API request which needs a compute manager with the SPICE direct code?
19:30:35 sean-k-mooney so you are addign a genic feature to add usb device or sound cards
19:30:37 mikal That is, for the SPICE direct console type to work, you cannot be running an ancient compute manager because it would generate the wrong domain XML.
19:30:58 sean-k-mooney so its not spice specific its server creeate which we validate in _validate_and_build_base_options
19:31:17 sean-k-mooney like this https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/api.py#L1151-L1171
19:31:20 sean-k-mooney and rebuild
19:31:29 mikal Ahhh, ok. And then the API microversion protects the overall SPICE direct feature I suppose.
19:31:37 sean-k-mooney correct
19:31:44 mikal Ok, that makes sense to me.
19:32:05 mikal In that case I'll take a swing at doing that version bump and so forth today before I move onto the USB traits stuff.
19:32:10 sean-k-mooney the min compute service check it just to make sure we dotn try to create the vm on a compute node that does not know about the new image properties
19:32:33 sean-k-mooney ya so there should be 2 bumps one for sound and one for usb
19:32:39 mikal Yep.
19:33:09 sean-k-mooney the sound traits are really just for schduing to a host that supprot virtio since that is the only one that is not supproted by our min libvirt
19:33:35 sean-k-mooney without the trait we woudl jsut get a late build error with the instance in error
19:33:58 mikal How does the API microversion protect against old compute managers though? Is it simply a case that we require operators upgrade hypervisors before the API servers and that protects against compute managers which don't know how to generate that domain XML?
19:34:17 sean-k-mooney no the api does not
19:34:30 sean-k-mooney for one we now supprot n-2 for slup release
19:34:43 sean-k-mooney so we coudl have an epoxy api and caracal compute
19:34:56 sean-k-mooney the microvsion does not help with that
19:35:08 sean-k-mooney that what the min compute service check in the api is for
19:35:48 mikal Yeah, so I'd need a version check in get_console() (or whatever it was called) as well then right?
19:35:54 mikal Not just spawn and rebuild?
19:36:02 sean-k-mooney not in this case
19:36:10 sean-k-mooney get console does not actully create a spice console

Earlier   Later