Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-04-04
17:01:00 dansmith aye
17:01:01 mriedem *out
17:11:40 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: DRY up test_rollback_live_migration_set_migration_status https://review.openstack.org/555489
17:11:40 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Avoid unnecessary port update during live migration https://review.openstack.org/556332
17:11:41 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Wait for network-vif-plugged before starting live migration https://review.openstack.org/558001
17:11:41 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add check if neutron "binding-extended" extension is available https://review.openstack.org/523548
17:11:42 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add "bind_ports_to_host" neutron API method https://review.openstack.org/523604
17:11:42 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add VIFMigrateData object for live migration https://review.openstack.org/515423
17:11:43 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: libvirt: use dest host vif migrate details for live migration https://review.openstack.org/551370
17:11:43 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add "delete_port_binding" network API method https://review.openstack.org/552170
17:11:44 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add "activate_port_binding" neutron API method https://review.openstack.org/555947
17:11:44 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Implement migrate_instance_start method for neutron https://review.openstack.org/556334
17:11:45 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: compute: use port binding extended API during live migration https://review.openstack.org/551371
17:11:45 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Port binding based on events during live migration https://review.openstack.org/434870
17:11:46 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: conductor: use port binding extended API in during live migrate https://review.openstack.org/522537
17:12:06 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: trivial: Fix nits in code comments https://review.openstack.org/558133
17:12:23 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Complement tests in allocation candidates https://review.openstack.org/558135
17:12:24 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: test live_migration_wait_for_vif_plug=True https://review.openstack.org/558006
17:12:50 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: test live_migration_wait_for_vif_plug=True https://review.openstack.org/558006
17:15:01 lbragstad johnthetubaguy: ++ yeah - it'd be awesome to get your input there
17:22:50 openstackgerrit Jackie Truong proposed openstack/nova master: Implement certificate_utils https://review.openstack.org/479949
17:22:51 openstackgerrit Jackie Truong proposed openstack/nova master: Add trusted_image_certificates to REST API https://review.openstack.org/486204
18:22:09 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Noauth should also use request_id from compute_req_id.py https://review.openstack.org/555266
18:22:32 openstackgerrit Eric Berglund proposed openstack/nova master: PowerVM: Add proc_units_factor conf option https://review.openstack.org/554688
18:23:27 openstackgerrit Eric Berglund proposed openstack/nova master: PowerVM: Add proc_units_factor conf option https://review.openstack.org/554688
18:31:01 sean-k-mooney dansmith: o/ do you have a minute to weigh in on unit test for the nic feature based schulding change set?
18:31:24 dansmith sean-k-mooney: I dunno, ask and then I'll answer :)
18:32:19 sean-k-mooney dansmith: alot of the test changes look like this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/449257/59/nova/tests/unit/compute/test_resource_tracker.py swapping from dicts to objects. if i do the lazy load change you requested the dict form would still work because we would have two fields.
18:33:12 sean-k-mooney dansmith: i dont want to duplicate all the test but im wondering should i migrate all the tests as i had done before to the object form or keep the dict form
18:33:50 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Fix typos in release notes https://review.openstack.org/554175
18:34:03 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Remove unnecessary code encoding specification https://review.openstack.org/557903
18:34:06 dansmith sean-k-mooney: well, what you have there doesn't really test anything other than kwarg dispatch of the init of that object,
18:34:12 dansmith which shouldn't be **dict, IMHO
18:34:12 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Move pypowervm requirement to 1.1.12 https://review.openstack.org/558254
18:34:21 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Remove a outdated warning https://review.openstack.org/557898
18:34:49 dansmith sean-k-mooney: on the field change,
18:34:54 sean-k-mooney well the ** was because i originally used sed for the conversion
18:35:00 dansmith uh huh :)
18:35:32 dansmith you need to add this as a spec_obj field, and yes, I would expect to see at least a test that uses the old dict-y spec field with the rest of the code
18:36:07 sean-k-mooney im going to get rid of the ** but im just wonding if i should get rid of all uses of spec=[{}] and move them to spec_objs=[objects]
18:36:10 dansmith I would expect to make all the existing tests use the object, and add one more new test that just makes sure something basic still works if you only have the dict field set
18:36:17 cdent sean-k-mooney, jaypipes (and dansmith and cfriesen_ you probably know this too): On jay's spec about cpu resource tracking ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/555081/ ) the existing situation is that any given host can only be shared or dedicated, but not mixed? Is that just an OpenStack/Nova limitation, or is it also a limitation in libvirt/KVM?
18:36:34 dansmith sean-k-mooney: yeah, except for the new test to validate the old dict path
18:36:51 dansmith cdent: just nova AFAIK
18:37:24 sean-k-mooney dansmith: ok ill convert them all to use objects like i had started and then add in test just for the old path thanks.
18:37:32 dansmith sean-k-mooney: yup
18:37:38 cdent so if we get nova sorted (via jay's ideas) we'll need to cook some code in the virtdriver, but not deeper in the stack? cool.
18:38:30 sean-k-mooney cdent: am nova will happliy allow a mixed host but it is not preventing the shared cpus from stomping over the pinned ones today. so we use host aggregates to seperate them
18:39:02 cdent sean-k-mooney: ah, okah, thanks
18:39:36 dansmith right, thatg
18:41:11 melwitt bhagyashris: I have a question about your spec on deleteBackups. my assumption has been that you have users that are currently using rotation '0' to purge backups as a side effect. is that correct?
18:41:59 melwitt *using rotation '0' to the createBackup API
19:07:10 mriedem anyone know the tl;dr on the 'a plan to stop syncing requirements into projects' thread?
19:07:20 mriedem sounds like requirements.txt changes are now all done manually?
19:08:48 dansmith from the oslo room ptg,
19:09:14 dansmith I think they were saying that they would only sync (or manually sync) requirements when the minimum was being raised past what the project has listed
19:09:20 dansmith instead of just always syncing always
19:09:45 sean-k-mooney mriedem: i get why we might want to do this to prevent raising minimums higher then needed but i think we are also losing that auto blacklisting of specific versions e.g. x>1.0,x!=1.1
19:09:48 dansmith so that things like swift can continue supporting the older versions of some libraries they have because of workarounds or lack of actual requirements for the newer one
19:10:23 mriedem i just see that it's throwing people off e.g. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554679/
19:11:36 mriedem and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/558254/
19:11:37 dansmith just yet another change in process
19:11:42 mriedem which is actually < than what's in g-r
19:11:44 openstackgerrit Tyler Blakeslee proposed openstack/nova master: Add __repr__ for NovaException https://review.openstack.org/555812
19:11:52 sean-k-mooney oh so in the scale io case they had expect the version bump but the proposal bot is not making it
19:12:05 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: [placement] api-ref: Fix parameters https://review.openstack.org/558142
19:12:18 mriedem i'm not sure why we'd even have g-r then
19:12:50 sean-k-mooney mriedem: i gues g-r keeps the minium for all pojects and nova requirments.txt has minium for nova
19:13:28 cdent mriedem: upper constraints remains the one true thing, even without a globally sync requirements.txt, maybe?
19:13:40 mriedem which means we could bump our minimum required version in nova for a library, but not care about bumping it in g-r
19:13:57 dansmith we still have to be below u-c
19:13:57 sean-k-mooney so if you dont deploy something that need the newer requirement you can still use version below g-r. that said our gate jobs always run with whatever is allowed by u-c
19:14:11 mriedem u-c bumps are automated
19:14:14 mriedem and merged in batches
19:14:25 openstackgerrit Eric Young proposed openstack/nova master: Support extending attached ScaleIO volumes https://review.openstack.org/554679
19:14:31 dansmith my feeling is that we'll still have some things where you can't actually use nova at the version pinned by cinder for a given thing
19:15:03 mriedem yeah. forget i asked. i need to find a hole to put my head.
19:15:57 mriedem the foot of snow we got yesterday doesn't help
19:16:15 dansmith better you than me
19:19:17 kashyap [nag] Since I'm awake at this random hour in front of the screen, might as well point out this if you are looking for something to +A: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/534384/
19:19:27 kashyap It already has a +2
19:20:29 smcginnis mriedem: I don't think g-r matters anymore and is probably going away at some point.
19:20:40 smcginnis Things just need to be between lower-constraint and upper-constraint.
19:21:52 sean-k-mooney smcginnis: isnt g-r the lower-constraint
19:22:08 sean-k-mooney smcginnis: or at least openstack wide lower-constraint
19:22:11 smcginnis sean-k-mooney: No, there is a new lower-constraint.txt file.
19:22:25 smcginnis sean-k-mooney: Well, I guess you could call that the new g-r.
19:23:01 smcginnis It's slightly different though: https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/master/lower-constraints.txt
19:23:13 sean-k-mooney smcginnis: oh ok is that updated automatically some how? just not sure what the delta is between it and g-r
19:23:36 sean-k-mooney oh its expcitly === with no ranges
19:24:12 smcginnis Right. It's saying "the minimum required is exactly this" rather than "it needs to be above this version, but not this one, etc."
19:24:15 sean-k-mooney so in theroy we could use it to test with minium supported version
19:24:27 smcginnis sean-k-mooney: Yep, I think that's the plan.
19:25:21 smcginnis It's a bit of a long read, but Doug wrote out the whole plan here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-March/128352.html
19:26:29 sean-k-mooney smcginnis: oh good to know. i basically assume that since we only tested with what upperconstraties allowed that anything lower might work but not worth the heart ache of finding out
19:27:09 smcginnis sean-k-mooney: Hah, yeah. And I think in a lot of cases, our lower bound didn't/doesn't accurately reflect what really is the minimum required.
19:27:18 smcginnis This makes it plausible to have a test that can verify that.
19:28:16 sean-k-mooney smcginnis: well the distros. esspcially centos et al would be happy with knowing that a minium is actully checked before they start intergrating
19:28:28 sean-k-mooney ill give the ml post a read thanks
19:28:54 smcginnis sean-k-mooney: Pour yourselve a nice cup of tea first - it will take a while. ;)

Earlier   Later