Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2025-06-24
16:33:28 gibi I spent time on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953121
16:33:39 gibi that was triggered by the discusson on the spawn_on patch
16:33:56 gibi I have local changes to apply some of those to the eventlet series itself
16:34:11 gibi but downstream priorities stole my time
16:34:17 bauzas gibi: I saw the -W, can I start to review it tho ?
16:34:30 bauzas (I mean the spawn_on patch)
16:34:35 gibi bauzas: you can it is not broken. There is a missing piece that I will add
16:34:41 gibi all noted in the review comments
16:35:01 gibi to be precise I will add a missing test piece
16:35:06 gibi not production code piece
16:35:14 bauzas ack
16:35:36 gibi and
16:35:48 gibi there is the governance discussion about when to drop eventlet
16:36:00 gibi honestly I'm a bit lost how to move that forward
16:36:23 gibi https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/952903/1/goals/selected/remove-eventlet.rst
16:36:42 gibi I hope the tc has plans to reconcile the discussion there ;)
16:36:47 gibi that is it form me
16:36:57 Uggla thx gibi
16:37:06 Uggla #topic Open discussion
16:37:12 Uggla We have 2 topics
16:37:22 Uggla #topic (andreykurilin) Expansion of "servers:detail:get_all_tenants" policy to other server read-only APIs (example: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952896)
16:37:32 Uggla andreykurilin, please go ahead
16:37:44 andreykurilin Hi folks!
16:38:06 andreykurilin I, as an operator, have a need to provide readonly access to compute resources for third-party teams
16:38:24 andreykurilin While list api works fine, get api provides much better UX
16:38:52 andreykurilin What do you think about extending current readonly apis to reuse existing policy?
16:39:23 andreykurilin Does it need new api micro version ? Spec? Blueprint?
16:40:40 sean-k-mooney one of the latter two but policy change generally dont need micro verions
16:41:57 sean-k-mooney we do have a spec, two in fact for the intorduction fo the manager role and service role to nova
16:42:13 sean-k-mooney if i recall form the mailing list dicussion you only wanted to expose 1 endpoint correct
16:42:22 sean-k-mooney if it was many then i would say it needs a spec
16:42:49 andreykurilin Yes, I need get server api exposed. Maybe server actions in future, but not at this moment
16:43:42 Uggla It seems gmann is not opposed to the change, which is a good sign.
16:44:26 andreykurilin I’m happy to commit some resources to cover more than is needed for my company, if you want, but not sure that I have enough resources to work on a big spec
16:45:00 Uggla I think the question is if we are ok to fix it as bug
16:46:32 Uggla sean-k-mooney any thought about that ?
16:47:42 sean-k-mooney i dont consider it a bug in teh backport sense. we could treat it as an RFE bug i.e. a bug with the rfe tag instead of a specless bluepirnt
16:48:23 sean-k-mooney i would suggest that if we want to do somethign this clcye we keep it small and targeted
16:48:45 sean-k-mooney and we can dicuss larger changes but in the context of next cycle
16:49:03 sean-k-mooney just being practical we hae several large api serises in flight
16:49:32 sean-k-mooney openapi scemea, service role and manger role
16:50:00 sean-k-mooney we may be ableo to review a targed patch but if you want to do many endpoint we will need more time to discss it then we have before m2
16:50:08 Uggla Tbh, I would rather have a specless BP. Easier to track on my side.
16:50:23 andreykurilin I’m ok to have only one endpoint “fixed” this cycle
16:50:45 andreykurilin Creating a specless BP works for me
16:50:54 Uggla So andreykurilin, if you can open a specless BP so I could track it.
16:50:55 sean-k-mooney then i woudl suggest filing a specless blueprint for server show
16:51:13 Uggla 👍
16:51:19 sean-k-mooney and then asking for it to be approved on the mailing list or next meeting
16:51:25 sean-k-mooney to give gmaan or other type to respond
16:51:37 andreykurilin Ok, got it. Thank you
16:51:40 sean-k-mooney s/type/time/
16:52:03 gmaan I am ok for the spec-less BP and agree that it does not need microversion
16:52:17 sean-k-mooney im ok with that direction too
16:52:27 sean-k-mooney just for the metting ^
16:52:54 gmaan I tried to search history why we did not do for SHOW server when doing for details and could not find any reason
16:53:04 gmaan it was just not needed by anyone till now
16:53:52 andreykurilin It was “workaroundable”. We lived with list + id filter for several years already and finally I found time to ask you guys about this
16:54:07 gmaan ++, thanks for bringing that
16:54:14 Uggla andreykurilin++
16:55:20 Uggla moving on to next topic.
16:55:25 Uggla #topic (ratailor) spec and implementation for show-instance-action-finish-time (https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp/show-instance-action-finish-time%22)
16:55:40 Uggla ratailor please go ahead.
16:56:08 ratailor As the implementation is also completed, just a request to provide feedback on spec so that it gets merged before FF.
16:56:17 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for server IPs APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937608
16:57:48 ratailor That's all from my side re this.
16:58:30 sean-k-mooney ratailor: do you have tempest coverage showing that this works ?
16:59:04 sean-k-mooney specificly it would be nice to see the test that orginally demponstrated this did not work passing
16:59:23 ratailor sean-k-mooney, don't have tempest tests yet, but I can try to submit chagne for that.
16:59:40 sean-k-mooney https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/905130
16:59:40 ratailor sean-k-mooney, yes, sure. I will try with that one.
17:00:04 sean-k-mooney it woudl be nice to update that and have it depend on your seriese to show ti workign end to end
17:00:31 ratailor sean-k-mooney, sure. Thansk!
17:00:37 Uggla sean-k-mooney, I agree it might also help on an escalation we have internaly
17:03:11 Uggla We have 2 more topics, but we are also at the top of the hour. So gibi, jonnyb if you don't mind we would be able to discuss next week. Except if it's urgent.
17:03:26 jonnyb hi, fine for me
17:03:36 Uggla jonnyb, thx for your understanding
17:03:44 Uggla gibi ?
17:04:14 sean-k-mooney jonnyb: you wanted to add a tiny weigher right?
17:04:25 jonnyb yeah right
17:04:50 sean-k-mooney if you have the patch it woudl be good for other to at least condier it before the next meeting
17:04:59 sean-k-mooney or perhaps start a mailing list thread on the topic
17:05:16 sean-k-mooney tl;dr is it weighs host by how old they are
17:05:23 sean-k-mooney and prefers the newer ones
17:05:43 jonnyb its a pretty simple patch
17:05:48 sean-k-mooney which is similer but differnt to the hyperviors_version weigher and they both complement each other
17:06:24 sean-k-mooney im generally ok with this as a specless blueprint by the way but we can disscuss that outside teh meeting or next week
17:07:02 gibi Uggla: no worries my topic was touched during the eventlet block
17:07:14 jonnyb I can move this to the mailing list to not drag this out here. thanks
17:07:48 Uggla jonnyb, that will be ok next week, I guess it will not take long.
17:07:58 Uggla anyway time to close.
17:08:03 Uggla Thanks all
17:08:16 opendevmeet Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-06-24-16.01.log.html
17:08:16 opendevmeet Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-06-24-16.01.txt
17:08:16 opendevmeet Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-06-24-16.01.html
17:08:16 opendevmeet Meeting ended Tue Jun 24 17:08:16 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
17:08:16 Uggla #endmeeting
17:30:08 gibi sorry I mixed up my topic
17:30:14 gibi we need to discuss https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952966
17:30:38 gibi this is pretty much needed by debian and ubuntu to be able to release on top of 3.13 while cpython 3.13 fixing a GC bug

Earlier   Later