| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-07-21 | |||
| 14:59:12 | mriedem | stephenfin, the kaiser of docs, asked to move it | |
| 14:59:31 | melwitt | brought down the hammer | |
| 14:59:59 | stephenfin | All Hail Stephen | |
| 15:00:13 | stephenfin | *too | |
| 15:00:42 | mriedem | only if markus_z is around | |
| 15:03:16 | melwitt | mriedem: I didn't notice this till now, but do you think "other" is the right place for this type of release note? or should it be under "upgrade"? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/386008/10/releasenotes/notes/quota-show-detail-access-d6f37282d288fa33.yaml | |
| 15:03:56 | mriedem | melwitt: sdague asked me about this exact same one earlier in the week :) | |
| 15:04:17 | melwitt | give me the scoop | |
| 15:04:21 | mriedem | if it were a new rule, other would be fine i think, | |
| 15:04:32 | mriedem | since it's changing the default for an existing rule, upgrade seems more appropriate | |
| 15:04:43 | mriedem | i think of it like config options | |
| 15:05:01 | melwitt | that's what I thought, I hadn't noticed it was "other" when I +2ed it. guess I'll change it and re +2 | |
| 15:10:01 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Change default policy to view quota details https://review.openstack.org/386008 | |
| 15:12:59 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-novaclient master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/485950 | |
| 15:46:24 | mriedem | ildikov: at some point we'll have to talk about the connection_info stuff going on in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330285/ because i don't get it | |
| 15:46:31 | mriedem | did cinder regress that in the api | |
| 15:46:32 | mriedem | ? | |
| 15:46:53 | mriedem | i'm not sure why nova needs to stitch things back together | |
| 15:47:19 | ildikov | mriedem: the information that's coming back from Cinder in the new calls is everything in one dict | |
| 15:47:27 | ildikov | mriedem: so there's no nested dict anymore | |
| 15:47:42 | ildikov | mriedem: whatever was under the 'data' key is in connection_info | |
| 15:47:47 | mriedem | oh | |
| 15:47:54 | ildikov | mriedem: so we put back the 'data' key for now | |
| 15:47:56 | mriedem | ok we need to separate that out into a different change then | |
| 15:48:03 | ildikov | mriedem: too much effort to remove it... | |
| 15:48:11 | ildikov | mriedem: it's already separated out | |
| 15:48:29 | mriedem | where? | |
| 15:48:32 | ildikov | mriedem: I just try to fix the old flow tests in the attach patch before upload the extended chain | |
| 15:48:37 | mriedem | ah ok | |
| 15:48:49 | mriedem | ok yeah the amount of test change in that patch really scared me | |
| 15:48:53 | ildikov | mriedem: but I can upload where I am now if you want to take a look | |
| 15:49:01 | mriedem | finish up :) | |
| 15:49:07 | mriedem | i don't have time to dig into it again today probably | |
| 15:49:08 | ildikov | ok :) | |
| 15:49:36 | ildikov | I have functional tests failing, which is kinda interesting, but I will figure that out | |
| 15:49:42 | ildikov | unit tests are fine now | |
| 15:50:01 | ildikov | I will upload when it's fixed or when I gave up for today... :) | |
| 15:50:09 | ildikov | and then move on to the new tests | |
| 15:50:19 | ildikov | mriedem: do you have any preference for the new tests? | |
| 15:50:32 | ildikov | mriedem: like kinda duplicate what we have just with the new flow? | |
| 15:50:39 | mriedem | ildikov: that's probably what i'd do | |
| 15:50:52 | mriedem | the functional api sample tests don't need to change at all | |
| 15:50:53 | ildikov | mriedem: do we want less code lines or complete separation? | |
| 15:50:55 | mriedem | or shouldn't need to | |
| 15:51:02 | mriedem | i want separation | |
| 15:51:12 | ildikov | I have 15 tests failing... | |
| 15:51:22 | mriedem | mucking with the old tests (1) loses coverage on the old flow and (2) makes it much harder to review IMO | |
| 15:51:28 | ildikov | ok, I prefer that too, so at least we are on the same page | |
| 15:51:41 | mriedem | fwiw that's what i did in the swap volume new style attachments change | |
| 15:52:17 | ildikov | honestly I wanted to see tests working and deal with finalizing them when we are kinda fine with the code | |
| 15:52:22 | ildikov | maybe wasn't the best idea | |
| 15:52:37 | ildikov | still helped understanding a few things though, so oh well | |
| 15:52:47 | ildikov | next time I will do it differently... :) | |
| 15:53:36 | ildikov | mriedem: I think we're good with the direction, I will ping you if I get this up at a reasonable time today so at least you know it's there | |
| 15:54:26 | mriedem | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1704293 | |
| 15:54:28 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1704293 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "We can not set volume's type when creating a vm from image by creating a volume" [Undecided,Won't fix] - Assigned to liuxiuli (liu-lixiu) | |
| 15:54:28 | mriedem | blarg | |
| 16:00:50 | jangutter | mriedem: would something like this (create non-standard volume/port/etc and attach it to the created server) ever be covered by the osc CLI? | |
| 16:01:47 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: claim resources in placement API during schedule() https://review.openstack.org/483566 | |
| 16:01:48 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: add retry tight loop claim_resources() https://review.openstack.org/486170 | |
| 16:01:49 | mriedem | jangutter: that's the way you do it today | |
| 16:01:51 | leakypipes | mriedem: ^ | |
| 16:01:55 | mriedem | which was my response in the bug report | |
| 16:02:17 | leakypipes | mriedem: I ended up hiding the tight retry loop in the scheduler report client's claim_resources() method. | |
| 16:02:27 | leakypipes | mriedem: so no changes needed to the scheduler patch. | |
| 16:02:31 | mriedem | leakypipes: sneaky sis | |
| 16:02:40 | leakypipes | mriedem_afk: :) | |
| 16:02:49 | jangutter | mriedem: argh, sorry, my verbage unclear... I meant, doing that in "one go" | |
| 16:03:08 | jangutter | mriedem: I think that's not just a can of worms, but a can of worm factory. | |
| 16:03:33 | melwitt | leakypipes: question for you, if this sort is to get non-shared resources first, does that mean "sharing_providers" has non-shared resources in it? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485088/6/nova/objects/resource_provider.py@1060 | |
| 16:04:47 | melwitt | just confused about what's going on there. and how does sorting them make non-shared be first? | |
| 16:06:45 | melwitt | cdent ^ | |
| 16:07:36 | cdent | melwitt: the name of the variable might be misleading | |
| 16:09:30 | cdent | melwitt: just a sec I’ll refresh my memory | |
| 16:10:38 | cdent | melwitt: the value in the dictionary is the id of a provider of that resource class that makes it available via sharing | |
| 16:10:43 | melwitt | it looks like sharing_providers is a dict where the key is resource class ID and each value is a list of resource provider IDs? | |
| 16:11:00 | cdent | of it items() is sorted by the value, then anything provider which is not one that shares comes first | |
| 16:12:03 | melwitt | non sharing providers always have lower IDs? | |
| 16:14:08 | cdent | no, the value will be None if it a non sharing provider | |
| 16:14:31 | melwitt | okay, so the Nones get sorted ahead of the lists of IDs | |
| 16:15:37 | cdent | yeah | |
| 16:15:45 | cdent | and it’s not none, sorry it’s an empty list | |
| 16:15:54 | cdent | it’s hard to track :( | |
| 16:16:19 | melwitt | okay, thanks. now this makes a lot more sense | |
| 16:29:43 | cdent | leakypipes: can you clarify your comment on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485209/2/nova/tests/functional/api/openstack/placement/gabbits/shared-resources.yaml . Are you saying it should be 1 provider or something else? It currently returns 0, which doesn’t align with what you seem to be saying | |
| 16:31:31 | leakypipes | cdent: it's currently returning 1, which is correct. | |
| 16:31:40 | leakypipes | cdent: $.resource_providers.`len`: 1 | |
| 16:32:29 | cdent | it is not returning 1, that’s why the xfail: true is there | |
| 16:33:03 | cdent | eXpected fail | |
| 16:35:13 | leakypipes | cdent: oh, sorry | |
| 16:36:11 | leakypipes | cdent: didn't catch the xfail thing | |
| 16:36:21 | leakypipes | cdent: I can investigate that then. | |
| 16:36:51 | cdent | i’ve got a better version of the test, will push it up without the xfail | |
| 16:37:39 | cdent | leakypipes: I can do it if you like, now that I know what the correct thing is I should be able to some reasonable poking | |
| 16:37:53 | leakypipes | cdent: sure, please do if you'd like | |
| 16:38:00 | cdent | ✔ | |
| 16:38:35 | cdent | am I slow or is gerrit slow? | |
| 16:39:01 | figleaf | cdent: both are possible | |
| 16:39:56 | figleaf | leakypipes: making progress on the alternates, and then lost connectivity to my dev env. Will continue after lunch | |
| 16:40:07 | leakypipes | figleaf: sounds good, thanks Ed | |