| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-12-03 | |||
| 18:06:23 | gibi | nope,ignore me | |
| 18:06:40 | gibi | link and add_done_callback is behaving the same | |
| 18:11:44 | gibi | OK I'm lost. I will try tomorrow with fresh minds | |
| 18:12:09 | dansmith | no problem, at least we know the problem now | |
| 18:21:27 | opendevreview | Will Szumski proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Adds regression test for bug LP#2132984 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969380 | |
| 19:03:22 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Add backlog spec for Graceful shutodwn of nova services https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/967469 | |
| 22:10:01 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: WIP Make QEMU_IMG_LIMITS process limits configurable https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969538 | |
| 22:53:47 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Propose Spec 1 of Graceful shutodwn for 2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/969299 | |
| 23:47:10 | JayF | Unsure who all has core on nova stable; but it'd be really nice to get this landed: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/968208 (and I'll take it back to next release when it is) | |
| 23:54:34 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add spec3 in graceful shutdown backlog spec https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/969543 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-12-04 | |||
| 00:10:23 | gmaan | sean-k-mooney: gibi updated the graceful shurdown spec, please check - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/969299 | |
| 00:34:39 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: WIP Make QEMU_IMG_LIMITS process limits configurable https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969538 | |
| 00:44:10 | sean-k-mooney | gmaan: ack ill take a look in my morning | |
| 01:04:43 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova-specs master: add spec for resource tracker notifications https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/967712 | |
| 02:17:15 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.2: [ironic] Ensure unprovision happens for new states https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/968208 | |
| 02:36:20 | opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: [ironic] Ensure unprovision happens for new states https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969547 | |
| 02:50:23 | opendevreview | zhou zhong proposed openstack/nova master: Create ephemeral and private secret when attaching encryptor https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969019 | |
| 07:00:32 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: ensure correct cleanup of multi-attach volumes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/916322 | |
| 07:59:48 | ratailor | gibi, sean-k-mooney bauzas could you please check this schema validation failure https://e88fada250d77d396ef5-a605dbf95134d478b50bec2dfa092555.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/openstack/146bb31174804bc5bebdba2b537c97db/testr_results.html related to https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp/show-instance-action-finish-time%22 | |
| 08:00:33 | bauzas | but I want to give a swing on the left specs I didn't read yet | |
| 08:00:48 | ratailor | In my local devstack env, I could get the instance action finish_time for create and attach_volume actions here https://paste.openstack.org/show/bWzmPfwfOZ9FQpfCpVPm/ | |
| 08:01:17 | ratailor | bauzas, ack. | |
| 08:01:31 | ratailor | gmaan, ^^ | |
| 08:06:19 | bauzas | ratailor: I'm not really a tempest expert about schema validations | |
| 08:06:50 | bauzas | I saw the patch that got -1 review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/953331 but honestly I don't know why | |
| 08:07:15 | ratailor | bauzas, ack. I think stephenfin can help here. ^^ | |
| 08:07:23 | bauzas | I see you're depending on the nova patches | |
| 08:07:52 | bauzas | so everything looks correct to me at a first glance | |
| 08:08:02 | ratailor | bauzas, could you please review nova-spec and implementation and suggest if anything is missing. | |
| 08:08:35 | bauzas | as I said, I'll do another round of open specs today | |
| 08:09:02 | gibi | Details: HTTP response body is invalid (Additional properties are not allowed ('finish_time' was unexpected) | |
| 08:09:18 | gibi | so I assume your nova patch added a new field to the response | |
| 08:09:22 | gibi | that was not there before | |
| 08:09:26 | ratailor | gibi, yes | |
| 08:09:43 | gibi | and the tempest schema wasn't updated to accept that field in the new microvresion | |
| 08:21:24 | ratailor | gibi, this is what I have done to update tempest schema | |
| 08:21:26 | ratailor | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/953331/7/tempest/lib/api_schema/response/compute/v2_101/servers.py | |
| 09:00:23 | jkulik | ratailor: looks like you're overwriting your changes to show_instance_action in line 19 again in line 40 | |
| 09:13:47 | ratailor | jkulik, nice catch, thanks! | |
| 09:36:53 | zigo | https://ci.debian.net/packages/n/nova/testing/ppc64el/66782181/ | |
| 09:36:53 | zigo | Looks like I have 2 unit tests failing in Nova's autopkgtest because our ppc64el servers are too fast, no ? | |
| 09:36:53 | zigo | Hi there! | |
| 09:39:44 | zigo | gibi: ^ Your thoughts? | |
| 09:40:16 | zigo | Should we add a sleep() in these unit tests? | |
| 10:57:48 | opendevreview | Thomas Goirand proposed openstack/nova master: Fix race condition in DB updates https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969745 | |
| 11:12:47 | opendevreview | Dominik proposed openstack/nova master: Regression test for Placement allocations remaining during failed schedule (bug #2132020) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969251 | |
| 11:19:23 | opendevreview | Dominik proposed openstack/nova master: Regression test for Placement allocations remaining during failed schedule https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969251 | |
| 11:39:54 | sean-k-mooney | zigo: we try not ot add sleeps in gerneal so ideally no | |
| 11:40:38 | sean-k-mooney | zigo: we normally contol time in these test | |
| 11:41:24 | sean-k-mooney | so it looks like the test has a race condtion. if we add a sleep it woudl be somethign liks sleep(0.001) | |
| 11:42:09 | sean-k-mooney | zigo: i think gibi fixed a few cases likt this before when they started workign on the eventlet removal | |
| 12:02:34 | stephenfin | ratailor: bauzas: you need to define a new schema for tempest before the nova patch can merge. gmaan is a better person again to ask https://github.com/openstack/tempest/tree/8e2e854051b247ce914982ab0c3c0ed5e2f01b09/tempest/lib/api_schema/response/compute | |
| 12:02:58 | stephenfin | hopefully the duplication can be removed once the final patches merge against nova (hint hint) | |
| 12:03:07 | stephenfin | *final OpenAPI patches | |
| 12:06:12 | opendevreview | Thomas Goirand proposed openstack/nova master: Fix race condition in DB updates https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969745 | |
| 12:12:06 | ratailor | stephenfin, ack. | |
| 12:19:00 | zigo | sean-k-mooney: You're wrong, IMO. | |
| 12:19:18 | zigo | sean-k-mooney: The issue is getting 2 timestamps in less than 1 second. | |
| 12:19:33 | zigo | Then they are equal, and later on, the test checks if they are NOT equal. | |
| 12:23:16 | sean-k-mooney | zigo: what im saying is we normlaly try to decouple the unit test entirly form teh infra | |
| 12:23:52 | sean-k-mooney | for example by mockign time.now() so that each call woudl increment by 1 second or some other way | |
| 12:24:44 | sean-k-mooney | zigo: for functional test we might uses sleeps as we try to avoid mockign if we cna btu for unit test we usually mock otu the tiem functions | |
| 12:37:24 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.1: [ironic] Ensure unprovision happens for new states https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969547 | |
| 12:40:55 | zigo | sean-k-mooney: Oh ok, I get it now. Then I can just do that (ie: do timestamp2 = timestamp+1) | |
| 12:44:27 | zigo | Though it may be harder than just mocking the timestamp function, no? I don't know how the updated_at is generated. | |
| 12:51:08 | sean-k-mooney | we can likely mock time.now() and that shoudl be enough i think but i woudl have to look at the specific tests | |
| 12:55:34 | gibi | zigo: sean-k-mooney: we should have a fixture for the time.now() already in our tests maybe it is not used in those specific tests | |
| 12:55:49 | gibi | but overall I agree to make the test independent of the value of time.now | |
| 12:56:16 | zigo | I'd say: please, feel free to takeover my patch and make it better. | |
| 12:56:23 | zigo | I don't have enough available time to do so. | |
| 12:59:11 | gibi | I don't have time for that at the moment too. sorry | |
| 14:14:14 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: we do have a fixture for that yes but i didnt check if it was used either | |
| 14:14:40 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/test.py#L828 | |
| 14:15:29 | sean-k-mooney | that works a littel defently then i descrbed making all calsl return a fixed time | |
| 14:16:01 | sean-k-mooney | in this case the test logic is either incorect or we need one to monotmicly march forward to fit this test | |
| 14:16:34 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/tests/functional/test_nova_manage.py#L2172-L2175 | |
| 14:24:43 | opendevreview | Dominik proposed openstack/nova master: Regression test for Placement allocations remaining during failed schedule https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/969251 | |
| 14:39:43 | opendevreview | Dominik proposed openstack/nova master: Remove Placement allocations in the broken build cleanup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/968446 | |
| 14:45:01 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Propose Spec 1 of Graceful shutodwn for 2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/969299 | |
| 15:08:05 | gibi | dansmith: sorry no progress yet with the utils.spawn issue. I was distracted with other things | |
| 15:08:44 | dansmith | gibi: no worries, I found it while doing other things, so once I found the issue I went back to those things | |
| 15:18:39 | gibi | dansmith: but now I found the change I had a hunch about https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953121/2/nova/tests/fixtures/nova.py#b1248 so before this change the utils.spawn in untit test executed the passed in function and *raised back* any exception. But that is semantically wrong as only utils.spawn(f).wait() should raise it. So I changed the unit test fixture semantics to not raise from | |
| 15:18:45 | gibi | __init__ | |
| 15:19:12 | gibi | so that is way in the past the test got the exception without the code under test ever waiting for the result of the spawned thread | |
| 15:19:46 | gibi | a/way/why/ | |
| 15:19:51 | gibi | s/way/why/ | |
| 15:20:45 | dansmith | gibi: okay but we don't wait() on the result of the spawn there, that's the point right? | |
| 15:21:19 | gibi | right. the live migration code never wait for that spawned thread to finish hence it cannot get the exception from it | |
| 15:21:20 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: gibi thanks for the review. ill remove the storage stuff and try and adress the other comments | |
| 15:21:20 | dansmith | we should have wait()ed on the result of the greenthread before, so the exception showed up at that point, so it was probably not semantically right before, but we still need a change | |
| 15:22:06 | gibi | dansmith: I don't know yet if the livemigration code needs to wait or not. In the past it did not waited. | |
| 15:23:13 | dansmith | gibi: but if it doesn't we would never notice if we failed to call guest.migrate() or raised any exception within | |
| 15:25:15 | dansmith | this example was a bad mock, but it stands for any failure within the thread we spin up to do the actual migration | |
| 15:27:03 | gibi | yeah I got you. The errors in the thread are either handled within that thread or lost and the migration_monitor just detects the failed migration independetly | |
| 15:27:44 | dansmith | will it? it will eventually time out or something, but I'm not sure that's really the same | |
| 15:27:54 | dansmith | but yeah, either way.. I think we need to collect the result regardless | |
| 15:28:17 | dansmith | and certainly by not doing it here, any unit testing we do will always pass no matter what happens inside that "thread" | |
| 15:28:18 | gibi | yeah I'm not against collecting the result | |
| 15:28:49 | gibi | I will do some trials locally what happens in devstack if I break the call to guest.migrate() | |
| 15:29:45 | dansmith | okay | |