| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-10-01 | |||
| 22:16:57 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/train: Reduce scope of 'path' query parameter to noVNC consoles https://review.opendev.org/686066 | |
| 22:17:50 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: Reduce scope of 'path' query parameter to noVNC consoles https://review.opendev.org/686063 | |
| 22:22:01 | openstackgerrit | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Reduce scope of 'path' query parameter to noVNC consoles https://review.opendev.org/686067 | |
| 23:36:06 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/stein: Make nova.compute.rpcapi.ComputeAPI.router a singleton https://review.opendev.org/684405 | |
| 23:36:12 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/stein: Func test for migrate reschedule with pinned compute rpc https://review.opendev.org/684406 | |
| 23:36:17 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/stein: Handle legacy request spec dict in ComputeTaskManager._cold_migrate https://review.opendev.org/684407 | |
| 23:36:24 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Reduce scope of 'path' query parameter to noVNC consoles https://review.opendev.org/685194 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2019-10-02 | |||
| 01:36:53 | openstackgerrit | Jing Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Force small pages accounting for CPU pinned VMs so that memory can be reserved on NUMA 0 for host processes. https://review.opendev.org/686079 | |
| 02:24:13 | SonPham | Hi, I want to commit my little project | |
| 02:24:54 | SonPham | It is a small module to snapshot VM and keep running process | |
| 02:25:12 | SonPham | what workflow i need to do? | |
| 04:40:15 | SonPham | Hi, I want to commit my little project | |
| 06:47:23 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: neutron creates child RPs under the compute RP and reports bandwidth inventory on the child RPs only. Also the resource allocation is done by nova as part of the instance (and migration) allocation. So the zun and the neturon case is pretty different | |
| 06:48:10 | SonPham | Hi, I want to commit my little project | |
| 07:02:42 | gibi | SonPham: hi! most of the core developers are active after 12:00 UTC. The contribution process is documented here https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/index.html | |
| 07:09:52 | gibi | SonPham: regarding your feature. How does it different from the existing snapshot feature of OpenStack? | |
| 07:10:50 | SonPham | gibi i'm using libvirt for snapshot | |
| 07:11:17 | SonPham | it can keep running process | |
| 07:11:59 | SonPham | but volume image type must be change from RAW to QCOW2 | |
| 07:15:00 | gibi | SonPham: I think nova can also do live snapshot | |
| 07:17:26 | gibi | SonPham: the relevant codepath starts around here https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/bf37bec80baa527ac013dfaa7480ef2761ed2cb9/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L2267 | |
| 07:19:16 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/nova stable/train: Imported Translations from Zanata https://review.opendev.org/685534 | |
| 07:30:17 | SonPham | gibi i think openstakc snapshot is an image of disk. not keep process | |
| 07:31:59 | gibi | SonPham: yes, it creates a copy of the disk while the libvirt domain is still running | |
| 07:33:52 | gibi | SonPham: you what I mean is that the existing snapshot code does not require to shutdown the domain | |
| 07:33:59 | gibi | s/you// | |
| 07:34:45 | gibi | SonPham: do you mean that in your case the snapshot itself stores the running state of the whole domain? | |
| 07:35:12 | SonPham | gibi my project create snapshot when domain running. but when you revert snapshot. all of process still keep lock like you snapshot | |
| 07:37:05 | SonPham | gibi yep . stores the running state of the whole domain | |
| 07:37:15 | gibi | SonPham: I see | |
| 07:37:32 | gibi | SonPham: I suggest to try to propose a feature specification | |
| 07:37:41 | gibi | SonPham: the nova spec repo is here https://opendev.org/openstack/nova-specs | |
| 07:38:25 | gibi | SonPham: you basically need to fill the spec template https://opendev.org/openstack/nova-specs/src/branch/master/specs/ussuri-template.rst | |
| 07:39:28 | gibi | SonPham: and open a blueprint pointing to the spec https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova | |
| 08:03:53 | brinzhang | gibi: I saw the code as you, and there is an configuration https://docs.openstack.org/nova/stein/configuration/config.html#workarounds.disable_libvirt_livesnapshot | |
| 08:05:17 | brinzhang | gibi: it seems that there is not has the API provide for user to do the live-snapshot,I think it's not support good enough(https://docs.openstack.org/nova/stein/configuration/config.html#workarounds.disable_libvirt_livesnapshot) | |
| 08:06:05 | brinzhang | gibi: I didn't go deep into the logic of this piece :P | |
| 09:17:59 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Do not print default dicts during heal_allocations https://review.opendev.org/686001 | |
| 09:18:00 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Test heal port allocations in nova-next https://review.opendev.org/669879 | |
| 09:18:28 | gibi | stephenfin: fixed your comments in ^^ | |
| 09:20:08 | gibi | stephenfin: unfortunately we dont have jq in the environment | |
| 10:17:34 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add a way to spy on function calls in test https://review.opendev.org/685949 | |
| 10:18:54 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Replace mock with spy in test https://review.opendev.org/685950 | |
| 12:38:44 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: nova-net: Use nova-net explicitly in functional tests https://review.opendev.org/684326 | |
| 13:41:11 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Improve spy CM's data passing https://review.opendev.org/686167 | |
| 13:41:45 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: lxc: make use of filter python3 compatible https://review.opendev.org/676500 | |
| 13:49:11 | efried | gibi: I'm having way too much fun with spy | |
| 13:55:12 | gibi | efried: I know.I feel the same thing :) | |
| 13:55:22 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Improve spy CM's data passing https://review.opendev.org/686167 | |
| 13:56:15 | gibi | efried: I try to answered your concerns about accessing _spy in the body of _spy() | |
| 13:56:17 | dansmith | efried: gibi: maybe I'm missing something, but why isn't this as easy as: https://pastebin.com/b0g9ZFHS ? | |
| 13:56:41 | dansmith | that mock-wraps the original thing with just one line but leaves you to examine the regular mock attributes | |
| 13:56:44 | mriedem | gibi: replied in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686047/ | |
| 13:57:19 | efried | dansmith: it allows you to examine the args, but it never runs the original foo() | |
| 13:57:20 | gibi | dansmith: is some tests we need to run the original function | |
| 13:57:29 | dansmith | efried: yes it does | |
| 13:57:31 | dansmith | efried: run it | |
| 13:57:37 | efried | oic | |
| 13:57:44 | mriedem | note that mock.patch(wraps=...) does that as well | |
| 13:57:45 | dansmith | gibi: that runs the original | |
| 13:58:04 | dansmith | ah, didn't know about wraps | |
| 13:58:12 | gibi | dansmith: let me try that with a bound method | |
| 13:58:17 | mriedem | wraps is kind of weird to use | |
| 13:58:20 | mriedem | not documented very well | |
| 13:58:58 | efried | What spy does is allow you to keep track of things per invocation of the wrapped method, which wraps= doesn't | |
| 13:59:29 | efried | also selectively change the behavior | |
| 13:59:42 | efried | like "run normally the first time, raise the second time" | |
| 13:59:54 | dansmith | I don't see how it's different from side_effect | |
| 14:04:21 | gibi | dansmith: side_effect is not good for calling the original if the original is a bound method http://paste.openstack.org/show/780754/ | |
| 14:05:02 | dansmith | gibi: that's because you're mocking the class not the object | |
| 14:05:15 | dansmith | I think you're just using your spy in a different order | |
| 14:05:27 | dansmith | if you mock.patch.object(a) I think you'll be fine | |
| 14:06:10 | gibi | dansmith: but in the functional test when we mock we tend not to have easy access to the instantiated objects just the classes | |
| 14:06:35 | dansmith | in that one scenario you mean, but not necessarily as a general rule | |
| 14:07:24 | dansmith | efried's use of spy in the patch above that does not seem to be very clean to me, especially for a supposed functional test | |
| 14:07:34 | gibi | dansmith: my goal is to want to get rid of (or contain) the scope magic and the original function handling in cases like https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/bf37bec80baa527ac013dfaa7480ef2761ed2cb9/nova/tests/functional/regressions/test_bug_1843090.py#L100 | |
| 14:07:59 | dansmith | but anyway, not saying it's not useful, it just seems like in a lot of cases, you could get away with base mock stuff instead of having to learn a new convention | |
| 14:08:11 | efried | oh, yeah, in the vast majority of cases | |
| 14:08:33 | gibi | spy is not a replacement for mock. There are cases where I think mock is hard to use to achive the same thing | |
| 14:08:43 | gibi | like the funct test I linket above | |
| 14:08:52 | dansmith | gibi: understand. using side_effect to provide a sequence of run,fail is more conventional than what either the old or new code in that patch is doing | |
| 14:09:02 | dansmith | assuming you can hook at the right spot to mock the object itself | |
| 14:09:40 | efried | dansmith: I don't think you can use side_effect to run,fail | |
| 14:09:46 | dansmith | efried: of course you can | |
| 14:09:53 | dansmith | efried: provide it a list and it will iterate on each call | |
| 14:09:55 | efried | because when you pass an iterable to side_effect, it's return values, not callables. | |
| 14:10:00 | dansmith | nope | |
| 14:10:07 | dansmith | return_value behaves like that, side_effect does not | |
| 14:10:28 | efried | side_effect=one_thing calls one_thing | |
| 14:10:28 | efried | side_effect=[one, two] *returns* one followed by two | |
| 14:10:33 | gibi | dansmith: btw, mocking f through the instance doesn't work either http://paste.openstack.org/show/780755/ | |
| 14:10:54 | dansmith | efried: "If side_effect is an iterable then each call to the mock will return the next value from the iterable." | |
| 14:11:01 | efried | ^ | |
| 14:11:56 | dansmith | efried: https://pastebin.com/bLpt6Skz | |
| 14:12:22 | dansmith | gibi: it's all about calling convention, it's tricky and magical, but you're not doing anything different other than the ordering | |
| 14:12:46 | efried | dansmith: yup, that didn't print "Foo ran 1" | |
| 14:13:12 | efried | try to get it to do that the first time, and raise the second | |
| 14:13:13 | gibi | dansmith: tell me how can I call the original with side_effect if the original is a bound method because I failed to find a way | |
| 14:13:26 | efried | gibi: you can't | |
| 14:13:27 | dansmith | efried: it printed 1, my local env has a different foo | |