| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-10-08 | |||
| 15:25:14 | dansmith | efried: okay that doesn't jive with what mriedem just said | |
| 15:25:16 | mriedem | artom: see https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/service_auth.py#L36 | |
| 15:25:26 | mriedem | efried: this is glance | |
| 15:25:28 | dansmith | efried: or do you mean it's done for glance already (which covers me)? | |
| 15:25:31 | mriedem | and it already goes through ^ | |
| 15:25:44 | mgagne | mriedem: we do have a local orchestrator for one region which requires volume-backed flavor. other regions now have local storage available for all flavors. | |
| 15:25:46 | mriedem | glane was the #1 use case for the service user stuff from osic | |
| 15:25:54 | mriedem | b/c of token timeouts during long snapshots | |
| 15:25:54 | efried | dansmith: sorry, I was wrong about cinder, which already does the service auth wrapper; and yes, so does glance. | |
| 15:26:02 | dansmith | efried: ackj | |
| 15:26:11 | efried | (swedish for 'ack' ^ ) | |
| 15:26:22 | dansmith | mriedem: what is the magic sauce for doing an api samples test with an empty response? | |
| 15:27:08 | mriedem | i'd have to dig | |
| 15:27:19 | mriedem | but i was wondering, is 202 the correct response if there is no body? should it be 204? | |
| 15:27:22 | zigo | If I run "nova host-evacuate-live", will it keep my VMs in their original availability zones? | |
| 15:27:33 | mgagne | mriedem: as for the local orchestrator, the user doesn't have access to the Nova API. If he had access to the API, we would probably have to put that middleware back in. (I don't see that one coming anytime soon) | |
| 15:27:43 | dansmith | mriedem: le shrug | |
| 15:27:52 | mriedem | cdent: "is 202 the correct response if there is no body? should it be 204?" | |
| 15:28:11 | cdent | 204 is if there's no body and you're done | |
| 15:28:13 | dansmith | mriedem: I guess maybe I validate the return value manually instead of calling the thing that would process a template | |
| 15:28:17 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: nova-net: Make even more nova-net stuff optional https://review.opendev.org/686801 | |
| 15:28:20 | dansmith | aight | |
| 15:28:32 | cdent | 202 is "imma do a bit more, check back later" | |
| 15:28:39 | mriedem | cdent: yeah in this case we're not done, | |
| 15:28:43 | mriedem | rpc cast to conductor | |
| 15:28:46 | mriedem | but no response body | |
| 15:28:49 | dansmith | yeah, async but no response | |
| 15:28:55 | gmann | you can skip the verify_response and just check the status code. that is how we did for action APIs with no response | |
| 15:29:24 | cdent | in that 202 is probalby fine as long as somewhere in the response (header or body) there is a reference to how I check back later | |
| 15:29:43 | mriedem | right now there is no checking back later | |
| 15:29:53 | dansmith | yeah, specifically uncheckable | |
| 15:29:57 | mriedem | i.e. there is no status tracking or anything | |
| 15:30:59 | cdent | then from the user's standpoint a 204 might make more sense | |
| 15:31:05 | dansmith | gdi cdent | |
| 15:31:09 | dansmith | 202 is less work for me | |
| 15:31:27 | mriedem | heh, how? | |
| 15:31:31 | cdent | dansmith: have a read of https://httpstatuses.com/202 and make your choice. either is probalby fine | |
| 15:31:40 | dansmith | mriedem: because 202 is done and checked in a few places already :) | |
| 15:31:47 | mriedem | that's what i figured | |
| 15:32:26 | mriedem | "The 202 response is intentionally noncommittal. Its purpose is to allow a server to accept a request for some other process (perhaps a batch-oriented process that is only run once per day) without requiring that the user agent's connection to the server persist until the process is completed. " | |
| 15:32:28 | mriedem | sounds spot on | |
| 15:32:33 | mriedem | especially the batch-oriented part | |
| 15:32:44 | dansmith | cdent: right so we picked 202 specifically because all of those things are true.. it's async, it may or may not happen, some constraints are checked later and may cause us to do nothing with no warning | |
| 15:32:54 | dansmith | mriedem: yeah, exactly | |
| 15:33:15 | dansmith | once per day batch is exactly this | |
| 15:34:14 | cdent | yeah, 202 is probably fine | |
| 15:34:15 | mriedem | unrelated to the response code, something i thought about while tossing and turning at 3am last night was that your api validation should probably check that the list of dicts is a unique set of image IDs and 400 if not | |
| 15:34:29 | dansmith | mriedem: already doing that :) | |
| 15:34:33 | mriedem | whew | |
| 15:34:36 | gibi | bauzas: tested your latest audit patch with bandwidth and left the result in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/670112/7 | |
| 15:34:51 | bauzas | gibi: /me is scared | |
| 15:35:00 | efried | fwiw I vote for 202 dansmith cdent mriedem | |
| 15:35:30 | gibi | bauzas: There is some confusing printout, and as you stated the current code does not handle child RPs | |
| 15:35:43 | bauzas | gibi: thanks for the paste, very insightful | |
| 15:36:38 | gibi | bauzas: cleary there is progress as the instance and the compute is found in cell1. | |
| 15:36:56 | gibi | bauzas: no worries. I leave for today now anyhow | |
| 15:37:11 | bauzas | gibi: I appreciate your positivity : | |
| 15:37:12 | bauzas | :p | |
| 15:37:23 | gibi | :) | |
| 15:49:09 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add image caching API for aggregates https://review.opendev.org/687140 | |
| 15:50:14 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: fixtures: Add support for security groups https://review.opendev.org/686802 | |
| 15:50:18 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: fixtures: Add support for security groups https://review.opendev.org/686802 | |
| 15:50:25 | artom | dansmith, left some thoughts about exception handling in your series | |
| 15:50:35 | artom | dansmith, tell me if I'm way off base | |
| 15:51:13 | dansmith | artom: ack, thanks | |
| 15:51:32 | dansmith | mriedem: looks like the bulk of our aggregate docs are in the user guide.. is that where you think I should put my stuff? | |
| 15:53:20 | mriedem | dansmith: rebase, that all recently moved and just merged | |
| 15:53:38 | mriedem | https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/aggregates.html | |
| 15:53:54 | dansmith | mriedem: like, this week? | |
| 15:53:57 | mriedem | yeah | |
| 15:54:02 | dansmith | mkay | |
| 15:54:07 | mriedem | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/667133/ | |
| 15:54:13 | mriedem | merged last night | |
| 15:54:41 | mriedem | efried: before i make changes please ack that i've answered your questions here https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686835/2/nova/tests/functional/test_boot_from_volume.py@192 | |
| 15:56:55 | mriedem | dansmith: if we had docs on the image cache in general i'd say that would be a good place but we don't have any docs about the image cache :( | |
| 15:57:06 | dansmith | heh | |
| 15:58:27 | mriedem | i guess another place you could stuff it is https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/admin/manage-the-cloud.html if that aggregates page isn't a good fit | |
| 16:01:05 | dansmith | erm, the aggregates page seems better than that | |
| 16:01:15 | dansmith | but obviously something image- or imagecache-specific would be better | |
| 16:01:33 | dansmith | I'll add it here in minimal detail and then we should probably shoot for some imagecache doc | |
| 16:02:34 | dansmith | looks like something has reshuffled in that aggregates doc to put the usage section after the more advanced topics | |
| 16:02:41 | mriedem | i think a pretty simple image cache doc could start with a high level description, list of drivers that support it, and the related config options | |
| 16:03:00 | mriedem | dansmith: you'll have to wrestle with stephenfin about that | |
| 16:04:09 | dansmith | heh yeah all the google linkage is broken now after that admin/user shuffleup | |
| 16:04:47 | mriedem | yeah i'm not surprised, the patch didn't account for redirects | |
| 16:06:16 | dansmith | yeah that new aggregates page is just kindof a mess and the ordering makes no sense | |
| 16:06:24 | dansmith | I guess I'll just chuck my thing at the bottom | |
| 16:06:34 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: compute: refactor volume bdm rollback error handling https://review.opendev.org/656500 | |
| 16:06:41 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: doc: Improve PDF document structure https://review.opendev.org/682746 | |
| 16:06:51 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: docs: Remove a whole load of unused images, most remainder https://review.opendev.org/686211 | |
| 16:06:57 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: trivial: Change name of network provided by NeutronFixture https://review.opendev.org/686798 | |
| 16:07:05 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: nova-net: Stop mocking the instance network cache https://review.opendev.org/686799 | |
| 16:07:16 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: trivial: Make it obvious where we're getting our names from https://review.opendev.org/686800 | |
| 16:09:13 | mriedem | luckily infra has a report of active docs 404s | |
| 16:10:35 | sean-k-mooney | the most annoying thing about google+docs is it does not priorties latest | |
| 16:10:47 | mriedem | http://files.openstack.org/docs-404s/ | |
| 16:11:11 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: that's probably good since we apparently just break our latest a lot | |
| 16:11:49 | mriedem | 5 /nova/latest/user/aggregates.html | |
| 16:11:55 | mriedem | yeah we should have a redirect for that | |
| 16:11:58 | mriedem | stephenfin: ^ | |