Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-03-21
22:27:51 sean-k-mooney oh we do
22:28:00 sean-k-mooney but that is not what im concerned about
22:28:20 sean-k-mooney the test issue im finding shoudl be broken in other jobs
22:28:32 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/d2dc7549ce9a0c979fd319cf0332a861b9cd2000/nova/tests/unit/api/openstack/compute/test_serversV21.py#L5129
22:28:43 sean-k-mooney self.stub_out('uuid.uuid4', lambda: FAKE_UUID)
22:29:02 sean-k-mooney that stubs out uuid.uuid4 to return FAKE_UUID
22:29:09 sean-k-mooney FAKE_UUID is a string
22:29:31 sean-k-mooney oslo messaging does unique_id = uuid.uuid4().hex'
22:29:44 sean-k-mooney .hex is not defiend on a string
22:29:49 sean-k-mooney so it explodes
22:30:06 efried why isn't it exploding now?
22:30:06 sean-k-mooney oslo.messaging still does unique_id = uuid.uuid4().hex on master
22:31:02 sean-k-mooney i think its another race in the tests
22:32:23 sean-k-mooney hum running that test on its own on the py36 target passes but files in lower constratits
22:34:39 efried are you running stop-on-first-failure or do you have a sense of how many tests are broken?
22:34:47 sean-k-mooney ok so my theory is that thing have moved and we are not mocking the right things when usign the older version of oslo.messaging
22:34:56 openstackgerrit Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova master: bdm: store empty object as connection_info by default https://review.openstack.org/645352
22:35:49 sean-k-mooney i was running all the test but while i was getting many of the test to pass the lower-constratits job was hannging after running for a bit
22:36:54 mnaser mriedem: ^ this worked locally running the unit tests
22:37:49 openstackgerrit Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova master: bdm: store empty object as connection_info by default https://review.openstack.org/645352
22:38:17 cfriesen mriedem: I assume the vTPM blueprint status change is because it didn't make it in for Stein?
22:39:09 sean-k-mooney cfriesen: mriedem mentioned he set the state back to pending approval for any blupritn that was approved last cycle but needs to have the spec reapproved
22:39:26 cfriesen thx, figured as much
22:40:31 mriedem cfriesen: right, re-propose the spec for train
22:40:38 mriedem i forgot to switch the bp status when deferring
22:40:55 mriedem mnaser: want to report a bug for this?
22:45:17 mnaser mriedem: oh dang i had one but i didnt add closes-bug
22:45:35 openstackgerrit Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/nova master: bdm: store empty object as connection_info by default https://review.openstack.org/645352
22:46:02 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: make lower-constratints env use lower-constratins https://review.openstack.org/645392
22:46:19 mnaser ok just noticed your reviews too ill try to address them after foodz
22:46:26 sean-k-mooney im going to keep working on ^
22:46:55 efried sean-k-mooney: Thanks for doing that.
22:47:38 mriedem mnaser: ok i left some comments in PS3, not really worth -1ing over though
22:48:28 sean-k-mooney efried: i can fix the FAKE_UUID issue but i still suspect that our mocking is wrong in some of the tests and code that should not be run actully is being run
22:48:40 mriedem dansmith: it's not a request filter because the request spec doesn't store the bdms, and during server create the bdms won't have multiattach information in them anyway, so to figure it out, i'd have to, within the filter, pull the list of bdms for the instance and for all with a volume_id, query cinder to figure out if the volume is multiattach or not
22:48:55 sean-k-mooney if the lower constraitn job explodes or times out then that is likely why
22:49:26 mriedem if we actually had a BDM.multiattach field, that could maybe work - but we'd still have to get the bdms during scheduling...which might suck
22:56:13 dansmith mriedem_afk: okay, seemed like it was just examining the reqspec to determine what to do, which is exactly like the other filters, but I admittedly was skimming
22:56:18 dansmith can look again tomorrow
23:32:49 sean-k-mooney mriedem_afk: dansmith melwitt i have been talking to erric for the last hour or two about the fact our lower constrats job has been broken since we created it
23:34:13 sean-k-mooney im assuming we are not going to fix this in RC1 i can likely have it fixed tomorow or early next week once i figure out where we are not mocking the rpc bus in some test but is this something we would fix in RC2 or in train?
23:34:43 sean-k-mooney i assume we would want to fix lower constraitn on the stable branches too?
23:34:52 sean-k-mooney https://review.openstack.org/#/c/645392/1
23:36:58 melwitt sean-k-mooney: I think you'll want to open a bug for that, yeah?
23:37:22 sean-k-mooney ya i have left a todo in the review for that
23:37:34 melwitt I'm not sure this is an RC thing because it's our test job not working, not a user deliverable?
23:37:34 sean-k-mooney but ill do it when i start on this again tomorow
23:37:58 sean-k-mooney true but the minium requirement we had listed were wrong
23:38:13 melwitt and then yes, I think we'd want to fix it on stable too. probably not pike since it's bound for EM in the next few weeks
23:38:33 melwitt sean-k-mooney: oh, I see. yeah, so maybe it would be RC
23:39:17 sean-k-mooney lower-constrtis has only been a thing since queens i think so its only the last 2 release + stien
23:39:22 melwitt RC2, that is. I'll add it to the etherpad
23:40:41 sean-k-mooney ya its not rc1 in anycase. but cool ill keep workign on this again tomorow
23:42:47 melwitt sean-k-mooney: sounds good, thank you
23:46:01 sean-k-mooney crap.. this same issue is in a bunch of repos
23:46:14 sean-k-mooney http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=install_command%20%3D%20pip%20install%20-c%7Benv%3AUPPER_CONSTRAINTS_FILE%3A&i=nope&files=&repos=
23:46:32 sean-k-mooney i should also send a mail to the list about this tomorow
23:50:08 melwitt sean-k-mooney: ++ good idea
23:50:48 sean-k-mooney does this fall under the remite or the requireemtn team, qa team or relase team.
23:51:14 sean-k-mooney i think its the same people more or less on all of them but ill chat to them on irc too
23:52:59 melwitt sean-k-mooney: I would think #openstack-requirements
23:58:15 sean-k-mooney ya so apparently lower-constraints is not actully requried by the PTI which explaing why many of the proejct with the prolematic install command have not seen this issue as they are not testing with lower constratints
#openstack-nova - 2019-03-22
00:00:25 sean-k-mooney placement is broken by this however as are a few other i have seen so far
00:00:46 sean-k-mooney oh actully no playment has the fix
00:02:30 smcginnis sean-k-mooney: What is the issue with the codesearch and upper constraints?
00:02:41 smcginnis Nearly every repo should have that.
00:03:34 sean-k-mooney smcginnis: yes but if you have that and you have a lower-constrats tox env and dont overwrive the install_command the the lower-constratis env uses upper-constratits
00:04:49 sean-k-mooney so novas lower-constraints job is broken as is congresses git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/congress/tree/tox.ini
00:05:18 sean-k-mooney and tripleo-validations
00:05:44 sean-k-mooney there are not that many project that actully have a lower-constraints tox env
00:06:24 smcginnis Really? Most should have that. It was one of those big blasts out to update the world.
00:06:27 smcginnis https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:requirements-stop-syncing+(status:open+OR+status:merged)
00:06:59 smcginnis Congress does. At the bottom of tox.ini
00:07:11 sean-k-mooney yes i know
00:07:27 smcginnis https://opendev.org/openstack/congress/src/branch/master/tox.ini#L103-L108
00:07:42 sean-k-mooney yes but its broken
00:07:53 sean-k-mooney https://opendev.org/openstack/congress/src/branch/master/tox.ini#L9
00:08:24 sean-k-mooney that install command means its lower-constrtis is actully installing the upper-constrats instead
00:09:44 smcginnis I believe with the deps set there, that makes sure it also uses the lower-constraints.txt
00:10:10 sean-k-mooney smcginnis: it does not
00:10:12 smcginnis At least it has been working that way for nearly a year now.
00:10:19 smcginnis Where do you see it not?
00:10:45 sean-k-mooney in the output of the gate logs
00:10:53 sean-k-mooney give me a sec an ill grab some
00:12:16 sean-k-mooney so this is a random nova change
00:12:18 sean-k-mooney http://logs.openstack.org/52/626952/12/check/openstack-tox-lower-constraints/7bc660b/tox/lower-constraints-1.log
00:12:40 sean-k-mooney if you scroll to the end you will see its installing zVMCloudConnector-1.4.0
00:12:51 sean-k-mooney the lower-constrating is 1.1.1
00:14:10 sean-k-mooney the lower constrait of psycopg2 is 2.6.8 its using psycopg2-2.7.7
00:16:37 sean-k-mooney doing the same with congress
00:16:39 sean-k-mooney http://logs.openstack.org/13/643113/1/check/openstack-tox-lower-constraints/b00ac73/tox/lower-constraints-1.log
00:17:06 sean-k-mooney that job used testtools-2.3.0
00:17:17 sean-k-mooney there lower-constrating is 2.2.0 https://github.com/openstack/congress/blob/master/lower-constraints.txt#L139
00:17:54 smcginnis Hmm, this had been working fine. I wonder if a tox upgrade or something like that has caused a change in behavior.
00:18:22 sean-k-mooney smcginnis: im not sure if it has been working fine or not
00:18:42 sean-k-mooney the issue is we are pasing two constratit files to pip
00:18:54 sean-k-mooney cmdargs: '/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/congress/.tox/lower-constraints/bin/pip install -c/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/requirements/upper-constraints.txt -U -c/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/congress/lower-constraints.txt -r/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/congress/test-requirements.txt
00:18:56 sean-k-mooney -r/home/zuul/src/git.openstack.org/openstack/congress/requirements.txt'
00:19:18 sean-k-mooney i dont think that is actully allowed
00:19:38 smcginnis It had been working.

Earlier   Later