| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-03-20 | |||
| 17:35:39 | edmondsw | furthermore, it's not possible to fix this bug without any possible chance of an upgrade impact | |
| 17:36:19 | edmondsw | johnthetubaguy so do we not fix the bug? That would be much worse for operators | |
| 17:38:08 | edmondsw | johnthetubaguy we can't leave a fully-supported API not only doing its own policy check but also relying on the policy check of another API that is deprecated... non-deprecated cannot rely on deprecated | |
| 17:38:36 | johnthetubaguy | edmondsw: as I said above, I am just trying to make sure we are doing the best thing here, you probably are | |
| 17:38:45 | edmondsw | as an operator, I want to restrict policy for the deprecated API more than for the non-deprecated API, and I can't do that unless we fix this | |
| 17:38:51 | edmondsw | cool | |
| 17:41:07 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/nova master: Read NIC features in libvirt https://review.openstack.org/444415 | |
| 17:43:14 | johnthetubaguy | edmondsw: I should nudge sneti and aunnam about this change, as it will sure help the policy descriptions to have this one merged | |
| 17:43:46 | edmondsw | sneti aunnam talking about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/389314/ | |
| 17:44:56 | johnthetubaguy | edmondsw: got a nit on the reno, what do you think is best there? | |
| 17:45:48 | sneti | edmondsw, checking that | |
| 17:46:17 | edmondsw | johnthetubaguy let me see what I can do there | |
| 17:47:04 | edmondsw | johnthetubaguy fyi, I removed _items to satisfy your earlier comment :) | |
| 17:47:26 | johnthetubaguy | edmondsw: sorry, I was unclear, it was the policy check moving that worried me | |
| 17:47:36 | edmondsw | I could go back to patch set 5 if you prefer | |
| 17:48:10 | johnthetubaguy | edmondsw: but that moves the polcy check into the _details method, which is the bit that I really don't like | |
| 17:48:34 | johnthetubaguy | edmondsw: just wanting to see policy checks at the top of all the API methods, where possible | |
| 17:49:00 | edmondsw | johnthetubaguy what about _details? there is no _details here | |
| 17:49:14 | johnthetubaguy | edmondsw: oops, I mean _items | |
| 17:49:36 | edmondsw | I don't think it makes sense to create the context var in the API method so we can use it for the policy check, then either recreate it in _items or update _items to let it be passed in, when _items isn't really needed anyway | |
| 17:49:45 | edmondsw | easier to just remove it | |
| 17:49:59 | edmondsw | but that's just my opinion... I can do it differently if need be | |
| 17:51:20 | johnthetubaguy | edmondsw: agreed with you, its just there are two changes in a single patch there, which isn't ideal | |
| 17:51:34 | edmondsw | sure | |
| 17:52:15 | johnthetubaguy | not blocking on that though, because its simple enough, and I like that change, its just a nit | |
| 17:56:03 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Allow PUT and POST without bodies https://review.openstack.org/447625 | |
| 17:56:23 | cdent | alex_xu: assume you are gone now, but for when you return ^ | |
| 17:56:56 | mriedem | EmilienM: looks like the revert patch failed in the ovb-nonha job, timeout in infra https://review.openstack.org/#/c/447514/ | |
| 17:58:13 | edmondsw | johnthetubaguy how does this sound for the reno? The os-volume_attachments APIs no longer check ``os_compute_api:os-volumes`` policy. They do still check ``os_compute_api:os-volumes-attachments`` policy rules. Deployers who have customized policy should confirm that their settings for os-volume_attachments policy checks are sufficient. | |
| 17:58:41 | johnthetubaguy | edmondsw: thats cool, that matches what we do for config then. | |
| 17:58:50 | edmondsw | cool, I'll throw it up | |
| 18:04:14 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Edmonds proposed openstack/nova master: fix os-volume_attachments policy checks https://review.openstack.org/389314 | |
| 18:04:48 | sneti | edmondsw, that's a simple change. so two changes in single patch looks good. may be you can add a comment on why it is removed | |
| 18:06:32 | edmondsw | sneti, sure, I'll edit the commit msg | |
| 18:06:37 | openstackgerrit | Claudiu Belu proposed openstack/nova master: POC: tests: autospecs all the mock.patch usages https://review.openstack.org/447505 | |
| 18:07:13 | sneti | edmondsw, thanks! | |
| 18:07:30 | EmilienM | mriedem: right, though it passed our functional tests (called pingtest) | |
| 18:08:22 | mriedem | claudiub: if you're still around, can you also hit these in newton and mitaka? https://review.openstack.org/#/q/I1d217620e52d45595a3e0e49ed57b4ab33cd1688,n,z | |
| 18:08:48 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Edmonds proposed openstack/nova master: fix os-volume_attachments policy checks https://review.openstack.org/389314 | |
| 18:09:11 | edmondsw | johnthetubaguy sneti ^ | |
| 18:09:28 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Allow PUT and POST without bodies https://review.openstack.org/447625 | |
| 18:11:49 | sdague | hmmm... bad log message somewhere - http://logs.openstack.org/90/417590/9/check/gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full-ubuntu-xenial/c831c5d/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt.gz?level=TRACE#_2017-03-20_17_10_19_178 ? | |
| 18:17:50 | mriedem | i think i know where | |
| 18:19:54 | mriedem | ha it's actually super obvious | |
| 18:19:56 | mriedem | if thing: | |
| 18:20:09 | mriedem | else: LOG.(something %s, thing.attribute) | |
| 18:21:09 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/381888/1/nova/compute/manager.py@6641 | |
| 18:23:42 | mriedem | sdague: you want to fix it? https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1674449 | |
| 18:23:42 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1674449 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "NoneType logging warning with "Received unexpected event network-vif-unplugged" message" [Medium,Triaged] | |
| 18:23:51 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Log a warning if there is only one cell when listing instances https://review.openstack.org/440652 | |
| 18:23:58 | sdague | mriedem: sure | |
| 18:24:12 | sdague | also... http://logs.openstack.org/90/417590/9/check/gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full-ubuntu-xenial/c831c5d/logs/screen-n-sch.txt.gz#_2017-03-20_17_07_00_573 | |
| 18:24:26 | sdague | why would the compute node be auto disabled in the middle of a tempest run? | |
| 18:24:38 | mriedem | b/c libvirt crashes | |
| 18:24:43 | mriedem | that's an old gate bug for xenial | |
| 18:24:55 | mriedem | the libvirt driver auto-disables the service when the host connection drops | |
| 18:25:07 | mriedem | http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/#1643911 | |
| 18:25:12 | mriedem | http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/#1646779 | |
| 18:25:19 | mriedem | http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/#1638982 | |
| 18:27:37 | sdague | mriedem: ok, well interesting, the libvirt fail is on a different test where the guests are irrelevant | |
| 18:28:05 | mriedem | but if libvirt fails and disables the only compute service in a single node run... | |
| 18:28:11 | mriedem | it's going to break any test that needs to create a vm right? | |
| 18:28:17 | sdague | it recovers | |
| 18:28:23 | mriedem | yeah eventually | |
| 18:28:29 | sdague | well, actually pretty quick | |
| 18:29:29 | sdague | I think we're building new guests within 12 seconds | |
| 18:29:42 | sdague | only a single tempest test failed in this case | |
| 18:32:26 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: should we really not expect hostnames on compute services to be unique across cells? | |
| 18:34:52 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: seems like a bad assumption, given its not the FQDN, its just the hostname, but I might just be paranoid | |
| 18:36:40 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: given we have a rabbit bus per cell, there is no restriction on that, so far, I might be overthinking that | |
| 18:36:53 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: I just figured if we started over, all those APIs would just use uuids | |
| 18:36:55 | mriedem | i figured the hostname was fqdn | |
| 18:37:20 | johnthetubaguy | I thought it was conf.host, which isn't usually fqdn | |
| 18:37:21 | mriedem | johnthetubaguy: yeah i don't disagree with starting over, see my latest reply https://review.openstack.org/#/c/447149/1/specs/pike/approved/service-hyper-uuid-in-api.rst@148 | |
| 18:37:51 | mriedem | it is CONF.host | |
| 18:38:28 | mriedem | Hostname, FQDN or IP address of this host. Must be valid within AMQP key. | |
| 18:38:43 | mriedem | so i guess it doesn't have to be fqdn | |
| 18:39:00 | mriedem | sdague: you might have input on ^ | |
| 18:39:14 | mriedem | i don't know why the services actions apis are different from the server actions apis in this regard | |
| 18:39:39 | mriedem | and why they are PUTs rather than POSTs | |
| 18:39:56 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: yeah, it does all seem a bit crufty in there | |
| 18:40:37 | johnthetubaguy | mriedem: I quite like the idea of adding the uuid in the URL in the new micro-version, to make it more normal | |
| 18:44:05 | mriedem | i can throw it in the weekly api subteam meeting for discussions | |
| 18:46:59 | sdague | mriedem: I'm confused, you pointed at https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/6f66119153a36ab2ee7d63c98418af3a56fd1f1e/nova/compute/manager.py#L6812 for that logging issue | |
| 18:47:06 | sdague | except, that line is printed fine in the logs | |
| 18:47:31 | mriedem | sdague: it's blowing up trying to process the sub vars for the message | |
| 18:47:53 | mriedem | i'm assuming because event is None | |
| 18:48:02 | sdague | well, are you sure? | |
| 18:48:11 | mriedem | although it shouldn't be | |
| 18:48:17 | sdague | Received unexpected event network-vif-unplugged-8ed92137-a81a-4afd-a391-854848cd2916 for instance | |
| 18:48:18 | mriedem | because if it was https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/6f66119153a36ab2ee7d63c98418af3a56fd1f1e/nova/compute/manager.py#L6867 | |
| 18:48:35 | mriedem | ah yeah | |
| 18:48:37 | mriedem | my mistake | |
| 18:48:45 | mriedem | when i originally looked at it, i thought it was using _event | |
| 18:50:01 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/oslo.concurrency/blob/master/oslo_concurrency/processutils.py#L355 ? | |
| 18:50:03 | sdague | and there are tons of these other places | |
| 18:50:12 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/oslo.concurrency/blob/master/oslo_concurrency/processutils.py#L385 | |
| 18:50:29 | sdague | you think that's blowing up? | |
| 18:50:38 | mriedem | "Logged from file processutils.py, line 385" | |
| 18:51:33 | jaypipes | sean-k-mooney, sfinucan, alex_xu, edleafe, Yingxin, moshele: https://review.openstack.org/447643 | |