| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-01-20 | |||
| 15:47:30 | johnthetubaguy | mdbooth: yes, assuming they are not features, and not going to risk hitting RC | |
| 15:47:32 | melwitt | mriedem: I saw that you've rechecked it as you've updated the d-g change | |
| 15:48:43 | mriedem | melwitt: yeah i saw it was passing except for the multinode job | |
| 15:48:51 | mriedem | which i'm hoping my d-g change to run discover_hosts will fix | |
| 15:49:12 | melwitt | okay, cool. I'm keeping an eye on the test run | |
| 15:56:38 | openstackgerrit | Feodor Tersin proposed openstack/nova-specs: Add ScaleIO ephemeral storage backend https://review.openstack.org/304715 | |
| 16:00:31 | mriedem | melwitt: hmm for some reason in this run it didn't run discover_hosts.sh http://logs.openstack.org/05/423005/3/check/gate-neutron-dsvm-functional-ubuntu-xenial-nv/df5f610/logs/ | |
| 16:00:39 | mriedem | my bash test for the existence of the file might be busted | |
| 16:01:09 | melwitt | mriedem: I saw this on one of the grenade runs http://logs.openstack.org/79/319379/64/check/gate-grenade-dsvm-neutron-ubuntu-xenial/49c8367/console.html#_2017-01-20_15_53_00_248820 | |
| 16:01:24 | mriedem | yeah that's old | |
| 16:01:29 | melwitt | oh | |
| 16:01:29 | mriedem | i fixed the permissions on the script | |
| 16:01:41 | melwitt | hm, well it just did it just now | |
| 16:02:38 | mriedem | http://logs.openstack.org/05/423005/3/check/gate-grenade-dsvm-neutron-ubuntu-xenial/e2dfc17/console.html#_2017-01-20_15_54_01_719388 | |
| 16:03:54 | mriedem | hrm | |
| 16:03:55 | mriedem | something is busted because it's also trying to run it on mitaka http://logs.openstack.org/05/423005/3/check/gate-tempest-dsvm-full-ubuntu-trusty-mitaka-nv/27e2070/logs/devstack-gate-discover-hosts.txt.gz | |
| 16:03:55 | mriedem | where the discover_hosts.sh file doesn't exist | |
| 16:03:55 | mriedem | do i need to run the test as the stack user? | |
| 16:05:35 | melwitt | hm, I know little about d-g. is sdague around? | |
| 16:08:38 | openstackgerrit | Davanum Srinivas (dims) proposed openstack/nova: [WIP] ignore me - trying experimental jobs https://review.openstack.org/421209 | |
| 16:08:44 | mriedem | actually d-g already does this: | |
| 16:08:44 | mriedem | "chown -R stack:stack '$BASE'" | |
| 16:08:49 | openstackgerrit | Davanum Srinivas (dims) proposed openstack/nova: [WIP] ignore me - trying experimental jobs https://review.openstack.org/421209 | |
| 16:09:47 | melwitt | not related to the failure but is it supposed to trace like this when cell0 already mapped? http://logs.openstack.org/05/423005/3/check/gate-grenade-dsvm-neutron-ubuntu-xenial/e2dfc17/logs/grenade.sh.txt.gz#_2017-01-20_15_51_45_409 | |
| 16:11:56 | mriedem | hmm, i think that's this https://github.com/openstack-dev/grenade/blob/master/projects/60_nova/upgrade.sh#L78 | |
| 16:12:29 | mriedem | blork https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/cmd/manage.py#L1157 | |
| 16:12:35 | mriedem | so yeah we don't handle the DBDuplicateEntry there | |
| 16:12:39 | mriedem | melwitt: want to open a bug? | |
| 16:12:59 | melwitt | mriedem: okay, sure | |
| 16:13:43 | mriedem | melwitt: actually https://review.openstack.org/#/c/420132/4/nova/cmd/manage.py | |
| 16:13:47 | mriedem | just merge that bad boy | |
| 16:13:57 | mriedem | dtp: to the rescue | |
| 16:14:08 | dtp | what's up my brother? | |
| 16:16:15 | melwitt | mriedem: ah, right, I thought I had seen dupe handling somewhere. that's where | |
| 16:16:38 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova: WIP: Add a PlacementFixture for functests https://review.openstack.org/423353 | |
| 16:16:38 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova: WIP: Scheduler calling the Placement API https://review.openstack.org/417961 | |
| 16:17:22 | bauzas | sdague: your eyes could be nice for https://review.openstack.org/423353 | |
| 16:18:08 | mriedem | dtp: nothing, just pointed melwitt to something you already fixed | |
| 16:19:31 | sdague | bauzas: that looks pretty sane | |
| 16:19:38 | sdague | is there code exercising it somewhere? | |
| 16:19:49 | bauzas | sdague: in the top patch | |
| 16:20:03 | bauzas | sdague: I'm getting a 400 like devstack | |
| 16:20:16 | bauzas | because we're not asking for the latest microversion | |
| 16:20:22 | sdague | ok | |
| 16:20:29 | bauzas | but when tested locally, I'm able to see the REST resources correctly | |
| 16:20:57 | bauzas | sdague: I haven't changed the noauth logic because I thought we could be discussing about the direction | |
| 16:21:28 | bauzas | sdague: because nova doesn't create a fake token to pass up to the next middleware, it rather returns a 204 with that token so a later call could use it | |
| 16:21:37 | bauzas | so it basically fakes keystone | |
| 16:22:00 | bauzas | sdague: but in the scheduler report client, we don't have the same logic, and we just get the 204 instead | |
| 16:22:40 | bauzas | so, the question would be : should we do like nova and have a better client, or should we just pass the fake token upcall ? | |
| 16:22:57 | bauzas | I didn't want that question to be discussed while reviewing the fixture | |
| 16:30:15 | dtp | mriedem to submit a blueprint for pike, it sounds like i just add a link to it to the next meeting agenda? | |
| 16:30:22 | pumaranikar | sfinucan, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/345708/ feature classification matrix. Can you please check my comment ? | |
| 16:30:36 | mriedem | dtp: specless blueprint? | |
| 16:30:38 | pumaranikar | sfinucan, let me know if any changes required | |
| 16:30:43 | dtp | yeah specless | |
| 16:30:56 | mriedem | dtp: just target it to pike for now | |
| 16:31:01 | mriedem | we aren't reviewing pike bps yet | |
| 16:31:13 | dtp | okey dokey, thanks! | |
| 16:33:18 | mfeoktistov | mriedem: what do you think about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312488/ also Virtuozzo CI ran and passed test_verify_created_server_ephemeral_disk | |
| 16:35:42 | mriedem | mfeoktistov: i think i have to wrap up some internal stuff today before i can get back to reviewing things upstream | |
| 16:36:01 | mriedem | mfeoktistov: but it was ok for the most part last i looked so i don't expect big issues | |
| 16:38:16 | mriedem | andreykurilin: one thing i wanted to remind you of, next thursday is the final release for novaclient for ocata | |
| 16:38:37 | mriedem | andreykurilin: i think we have some stuff to get released, like at least one microversion, and maybe some bug fixes | |
| 16:38:44 | andreykurilin | mriedem: thanks for reminding :) | |
| 16:39:15 | andreykurilin | mriedem: we have one critical bug fix at review. I'll try to help author to finish it asap | |
| 16:39:21 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/python-novaclient/compare/7.0.0...master | |
| 16:39:26 | andreykurilin | mriedem: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/419441/ | |
| 16:39:31 | openstackgerrit | Hironori Shiina proposed openstack/nova: ironic: Add trigger crash dump support to ironic driver https://review.openstack.org/376548 | |
| 16:42:18 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova: WIP: Scheduler calling the Placement API https://review.openstack.org/417961 | |
| 16:42:18 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova: Add a PlacementFixture https://review.openstack.org/423353 | |
| 16:42:44 | bauzas | sdague: could you please reapply your +2 ? I just add UTs for validating the fixture | |
| 16:43:10 | sdague | bauzas: done | |
| 16:43:12 | bauzas | mriedem: leakypipes: in case you wanna quickly +W it ^ | |
| 16:43:24 | bauzas | sdague: thanks | |
| 16:43:31 | bauzas | now working on the microversion issue | |
| 16:43:35 | bauzas | leakypipes: ^ | |
| 16:48:24 | mriedem | bauzas: sdague: why do we need to stub out the scheduler report client if we have a placement fixture? | |
| 16:48:44 | mriedem | i.e. can't the scheduler report client just make calls to placement which is really going to be the placement fixture? | |
| 16:48:46 | bauzas | mriedem: because we don't have yet a real placement client | |
| 16:49:10 | sdague | mriedem: because we'd need to emulate *all* the details of keystone | |
| 16:49:15 | sdague | including the token contents | |
| 16:49:52 | sdague | we did the same thing on the osapi fixture | |
| 16:50:26 | sdague | it just feels less janky because the test code is given that client back, and it makes the calls | |
| 16:50:32 | bauzas | yeah I tried to use the same logic | |
| 16:50:50 | sdague | but here we've got a keystone validated client in between services that aren't directly being talked to by the test | |
| 16:50:57 | mriedem | so will this still use the resource providers in the nova_api db? | |
| 16:51:14 | bauzas | yeah I would have loved to see something like a faked client but I wasn't able | |
| 16:51:18 | mriedem | like we'll have functional tests for the scheduler that post some RPs to setup some data, and then the scheduler will run and GET them back? | |
| 16:51:30 | bauzas | mriedem: yup, see the top patch | |
| 16:51:34 | sdague | mriedem: yeh, all that linkage is there | |
| 16:51:40 | bauzas | eg. the server affinity ones | |
| 16:52:10 | bauzas | I tested that with server group test class | |
| 16:52:19 | mriedem | ok, it's not obvious from the server group test | |
| 16:52:37 | bauzas | sec, finding you the logs | |
| 16:52:41 | mriedem | i figured there would be a specific scheduler filter functional test that preloads (POSTs) some RPs into the placement fixture | |
| 16:52:53 | mriedem | and then calls the scheduler filter to get some hosts back | |
| 16:53:01 | mriedem | but whatever, i'm sure it was failing before you added this | |
| 16:53:29 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova: numa: add numa constraints for emulator threads policy https://review.openstack.org/385023 | |
| 16:53:32 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova: objects: add new field cpuset_reserved in NUMACell https://review.openstack.org/400874 | |