| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-01-05 | |||
| 12:28:59 | diga_ | cdent: is that all ? | |
| 12:29:06 | sfinucan | I also have this to deprecate that floating IPs opt so perhaps we shouldn't move that too (but I don't care so much about this one) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/416959/ | |
| 12:29:12 | gibi | diga_: here is the template you need to fill https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/pike-template.rst | |
| 12:29:23 | diga_ | gibi: okay | |
| 12:29:58 | cdent | diga: the service is called placement-api and it will be enabled unless it is explicitly turned off | |
| 12:29:59 | gibi | diga_: then push the spec up for review in the nova-specs repo | |
| 12:30:01 | diga_ | gibi: will go through it first | |
| 12:30:28 | diga_ | okay | |
| 12:30:31 | diga_ | cdent: okay | |
| 12:31:43 | diga_ | gibi: will submit the spec soon | |
| 12:32:08 | diga_ | gibi: I think it is necessary to submit the spec spec & then start the implementation | |
| 12:32:11 | diga_ | ? | |
| 12:32:26 | sfinucan | mdbooth: +2'd | |
| 12:33:16 | gibi | diga_: you can start the implementation as early as you would like but you can only expect code review on your implementation after the related spec is approved | |
| 12:33:40 | diga_ | gibi: ohh..kk | |
| 12:33:59 | gibi | diga_: you don't have to rush as nova folks are pretty busy finishing Ocata these days | |
| 12:33:59 | diga_ | gibi: got it, will start on spec first then | |
| 12:34:28 | gibi | diga_: cool | |
| 12:34:33 | diga_ | gibi: yep | |
| 12:37:19 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/os-vif: vif_plug_ovs: Always set MTU when plugging devices https://review.openstack.org/408779 | |
| 12:38:56 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: Ah, mriedem already pipped us to the mark https://review.openstack.org/#/c/410996/ | |
| 12:39:35 | gibi | diga_: here are two example spec about adding new notifications https://review.openstack.org/#/c/321336/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/340715/ | |
| 12:40:34 | diga_ | gibi: Thanks for sharing this, this is very helpful :) | |
| 12:41:43 | diga_ | gibi: will go through it, add it accordingly | |
| 12:41:47 | diga_ | gibi: brb | |
| 12:46:44 | openstackgerrit | Zhenyu Zheng proposed openstack/nova: Add query parameters white list for server list/detail https://review.openstack.org/408571 | |
| 13:07:07 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova: [WIP] Structure for simply managing placement-api-ref https://review.openstack.org/409340 | |
| 13:08:00 | cdent | sdague: if you get a chance to look at that ^ to sanity check that would be awesome. It's not done, but I want to make sure I'm not heading down a bad path. You'll also likely have some insight on how to make the testing it tries to do happen in the right place. | |
| 13:12:57 | sdague | cdent: looking | |
| 13:13:05 | cdent | s | |
| 13:13:05 | cdent | awesome, thank | |
| 13:16:56 | johnthetubaguy | sfinucan: ah, good spot | |
| 13:19:04 | sdague | cdent: yeh, that catch looks generally good, though the gate docs target actually doesn't run tox -e docs, so that's not going to fail in the gate when it's failing locally | |
| 13:19:14 | cdent | yeah | |
| 13:19:19 | cdent | (mentioned that in the commit message) | |
| 13:19:44 | openstackgerrit | Alex Szarka proposed openstack/nova: Transform instance-exists notification https://review.openstack.org/403660 | |
| 13:20:01 | cdent | it not failing is fine for now since there aren't any docs, but it would be nice to flip a switch at the bottom of the stack after all existing routes are docced | |
| 13:20:26 | cdent | s/bottom/top/ <- dan's ordering | |
| 13:22:01 | johnthetubaguy | sfinucan: I think we just move them all | |
| 13:30:19 | sdague | cdent: well, it causes the local tox rule to fail | |
| 13:31:12 | cdent | sdague: yeah, what I mean is: it would be nice to make the lack of docs to cause a docs failure (somehow), after all the existing routes are documented | |
| 13:38:20 | mdbooth | sfinucan: Thanks. | |
| 13:40:52 | openstackgerrit | Gleb Stepanov proposed openstack/python-novaclient: Add evacuate host method https://review.openstack.org/349179 | |
| 13:41:36 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: I agree | |
| 13:43:29 | openstackgerrit | Alex Szarka proposed openstack/nova: Transform instance.rebuild notification https://review.openstack.org/384922 | |
| 14:00:07 | wznoinsk | frickler, we're on it, thanks | |
| 14:10:29 | johnthetubaguy | cdent: I got a bit confused with a bit of gabbi, can you check I am interpreting it correctly please: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/407742 | |
| 14:10:37 | johnthetubaguy | ah, oops, he is not here | |
| 14:14:48 | edleafe | johnthetubaguy: I'm kinda fuzzy on that part, too | |
| 14:23:40 | openstackgerrit | Gleb Stepanov proposed openstack/nova: Add _rebuild_instance helper method https://review.openstack.org/376004 | |
| 14:36:29 | openstackgerrit | Alex Szarka proposed openstack/nova: Transform instance-exists notification https://review.openstack.org/403660 | |
| 14:39:42 | macsz | sfinucan: my gerrit weltschmerz-ism precedes me | |
| 14:46:42 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova: libvirt: fix uncaugth exception during soft reboot https://review.openstack.org/376350 | |
| 14:46:43 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova: libvirt: make coherent logs when reboot success https://review.openstack.org/416994 | |
| 14:46:43 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova: libvirt: rework _destroy method https://review.openstack.org/416995 | |
| 14:50:14 | mriedem | wznoinsk: intel nfv ci having some issues today? | |
| 14:52:12 | openstackgerrit | Jeremy Liu proposed openstack/nova: [2/3]Replace six.iteritems() with .items() https://review.openstack.org/413470 | |
| 14:52:43 | openstackgerrit | Marco Voelz proposed openstack/nova-specs: Add port deletion on termination of server https://review.openstack.org/416997 | |
| 14:53:47 | voelzmo | @johnthetubaguy remember our conversation about pre-created ports being deleted on VM termination? proposed that to nova-specs for pike: ^^ | |
| 15:01:46 | mriedem | voelzmo: just left some comments | |
| 15:02:54 | mriedem | personally i'd consider that super low priority since if you can create the port outside of nova you should be able to delete it too | |
| 15:03:45 | mriedem | the delete_on_termination stuff with volumes has gotten us into problems with cinder state management too | |
| 15:03:56 | cdent | sdague: having two different api-ref's in the nova tree makes for some ick with trying to reuse existing api-ref jobs and job groups. Would you suggest making a standalone placement-api-ref job and annotating it appropriately? Or something else? | |
| 15:03:59 | mriedem | where we can't delete the server because nova can't delete the volume | |
| 15:04:14 | mriedem | cdent: i'd separate them | |
| 15:04:26 | mriedem | it's just different subdirectories and tox targets | |
| 15:04:35 | mriedem | the project-config stuff should be fairly simple too | |
| 15:05:30 | cdent | mriedem: I was referring to the fact that there is a lot of automation already in place for {name}-api-ref that looks for directories of certain names, which falls flat in the face of placement-api-ref, thus the need for newer/separate job | |
| 15:07:22 | mriedem | automation in nova or in project-config? | |
| 15:07:33 | sfinucan | sahid: Had a gawk at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/409261 - one comment left | |
| 15:07:37 | cdent | mriedem: project-config | |
| 15:07:58 | cdent | nothing that can't be overcome relatively easily | |
| 15:08:54 | sfinucan | johnthetubaguy: I just re +2'd that patch we were discussing earlier, if you wanted to do the same https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346869/ | |
| 15:14:44 | sahid | sfinucan: ok thanks i will have a look shortly | |
| 15:15:16 | Guest41100 | mriedem: I reordered my set to put these two cleanups in front of the next patch I'm working on so we can get them out of the way: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/410471/6 | |
| 15:15:31 | yingjun | The flavor versioned notifications patches are all ready, the first patch got a +2 from mriedem, it would be much appreciated if any other core could take a look at that :) | |
| 15:15:34 | yingjun | link: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/flavor-notifications+status:open | |
| 15:15:48 | mriedem | sfinucan: sahid: would be nice to use a namedtuple in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/409260/ rather than a naked old tuple | |
| 15:15:48 | mriedem | mapping to tuples always grosses me out | |
| 15:15:57 | mriedem | Guest57355: ok :) | |
| 15:16:08 | Guest57355 | eff | |
| 15:16:16 | sfinucan | Yeah, I thought a dict but then thought it might be a little...heavy | |
| 15:16:16 | mriedem | i think https://review.openstack.org/#/c/416585/ is also having issues still | |
| 15:16:19 | sfinucan | namedtuple works | |
| 15:17:17 | dansmith | mriedem: yeah I just pushed another attempt | |
| 15:18:58 | sdague | dansmith: you want to do this db create reordering - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384916/ ? | |
| 15:20:04 | dansmith | sdague: yeah, probably so | |
| 15:20:35 | sdague | ok, want to throw a +1 on that for posterity? | |
| 15:20:39 | sdague | Then I'll +2 it | |
| 15:21:05 | dansmith | sure | |
| 15:21:16 | dansmith | sdague: thanks | |
| 15:21:17 | voelzmo | @mriedem thanks for the comments. I understand that from a nova perspective it is undesirable that you cannot delete the server when cinder cannot delete a volume, or that it ends up in some intermediate state. But that's the tragedy of distributed systems, right? | |
| 15:21:31 | mriedem | dansmith: sdague: why do i feel like we already went through this ordering change once already | |
| 15:22:10 | dansmith | mriedem: I had the same feeling, but I think it must have been another detail.. just creating the database shouldn't be a problem | |
| 15:22:15 | voelzmo | @mriedem So that means, if – for some reasons – you would need to clean up manually afterwards, you wouldn't be worse off than right now, correct? | |
| 15:22:32 | voelzmo | whereas, when everything goes right, you would be better of, as things are cleaned up automatically | |
| 15:22:42 | voelzmo | so imho, this would still be an improvement | |
| 15:22:44 | mriedem | voelzmo: well http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/project_scope.html?highlight=proxy#api-scope | |
| 15:23:02 | mriedem | voelzmo: unless we totally screw it up and you can't delete one resource or the other because of state management bugs | |
| 15:23:07 | mriedem | doh | |