| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-10-29 | |||
| 16:09:21 | mriedem | it's because marker and id changed from an int id to a uuid in 2.53 | |
| 16:09:24 | mriedem | for multi-cell listing | |
| 16:09:38 | efried | oh, sorry, I misread 2.33 as 2.53. | |
| 16:09:40 | mriedem | iow, the int id is not unique across cells | |
| 16:09:40 | efried | This looks fine. | |
| 16:10:28 | efried | mriedem: but while I have your attention... adding support for new qparams into SDK, who's responsible for that? | |
| 16:10:45 | efried | do we have like a known "we have SDK support up to XXX microversion" somewhere? | |
| 16:11:54 | mriedem | nope | |
| 16:11:56 | efried | e.g. with_servers in that same API doesn't seem to exist in the SDK compute proxy's `hypervisors()` method. | |
| 16:11:57 | mriedem | i did that for osc | |
| 16:12:05 | mriedem | https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/compute-api-microversion-gap-in-osc | |
| 16:12:13 | efried | ack | |
| 16:12:28 | mriedem | getting anyone to care about that is also pretty non-starty | |
| 16:12:28 | efried | but you're not surprised that `with_servers` isn't in the SDK yet? | |
| 16:12:33 | mriedem | hell no | |
| 16:12:36 | efried | okay. | |
| 16:12:59 | mriedem | as i've said before, the only thing that surprises me in openstack anymore is when things work | |
| 16:17:26 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Reset instance to current vm_state if rolling back in resize_instance https://review.opendev.org/691908 | |
| 16:19:33 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Use admin neutron client to gather port resource requests https://review.opendev.org/691005 | |
| 16:20:46 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Use admin neutron client to see if instance has qos ports https://review.opendev.org/691900 | |
| 16:51:42 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add known limitation about resize not resizing ephemeral disks https://review.opendev.org/691915 | |
| 16:52:23 | AJaeger | nova team, could I get a second +2 on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/689020/ to update the openSUSE Zuul job, please? Once that is in, I'll backport as well - these are needed to move forward on the infra side. | |
| 16:56:23 | AJaeger | thanks, dansmith ! | |
| 16:56:31 | dansmith | AJaeger: np | |
| 17:00:40 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref: re-work resize action post-conditions https://review.opendev.org/691918 | |
| 17:18:56 | gmann | johnthetubaguy melwitt: replied on unified limit spec added comment of hangout call. this lgtm now. I think it is all you have captured in spec but it will be good if you can explain the plan per cycle (what we discussed in hangout, i wrote it in comment). also you need to change the cycle name in spec -https://review.opendev.org/#/c/602201/15/specs/ussuri/approved/unified-limits-nova.rst@523 | |
| 17:30:35 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: "- at some cycle in future - remove the APIs." | |
| 17:31:15 | sean-k-mooney | gmann_afk: have we ever actully got around to removeing an api since we adopted micorverions | |
| 17:31:36 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. you can always fall back to 2.0 and get them | |
| 17:32:29 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: we have removed the network stuff, AFAIK | |
| 17:32:35 | dansmith | returning 409 Gone for those | |
| 17:32:44 | sean-k-mooney | the nova net apis? | |
| 17:33:00 | sean-k-mooney | ya i guess | |
| 17:33:11 | sean-k-mooney | we just usually keep them for quite a long time | |
| 17:36:20 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: removing API i mean 410 and keep the endpoints. | |
| 17:36:54 | gmann | like nova-net, cloudpipe, nova-cert APIs. but yes when it will happen do not know | |
| 17:37:34 | sean-k-mooney | i guess there have been a few | |
| 17:37:45 | sean-k-mooney | ya that is what i assumed you ment | |
| 17:38:53 | gmann | i clarified in comment. | |
| 18:05:39 | mriedem | dansmith: you're going to have to recheck your top notification patch on https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1850514 | |
| 18:05:39 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1850514 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "ReshapeForPCPUsTest.test_vcpu_to_pcpu_reshape intermittently fails with "Cannot 'migrate' instance while it is in vm_state building"" [Medium,Confirmed] | |
| 18:05:45 | dansmith | yeah I know | |
| 18:11:49 | mriedem | ok, posting a fix for that bug | |
| 18:11:57 | mriedem | it's using the _wait_for_state_change i hate | |
| 18:12:02 | mriedem | but all of the libvirt functional tests use | |
| 18:33:01 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix race in test_vcpu_to_pcpu_reshape https://review.opendev.org/691941 | |
| 18:33:06 | mriedem | dansmith: efried: ^ fixes that gate bug | |
| 18:48:28 | dansmith | mriedem: I haven't looked, but why does that fix it? because it might catch the ACTIVE before the transition or something? | |
| 18:51:46 | efried | dansmith: yes, that's how I understand it. | |
| 18:52:00 | efried | because it catches "not ACTIVE" immediately, rather. | |
| 18:52:43 | efried | mriedem: +2 | |
| 18:56:58 | dansmith | yeah okay | |
| 18:57:11 | dansmith | oh I should read the damn commit message :P | |
| 19:00:27 | mriedem | always start with the commit message... | |
| 19:00:30 | mriedem | at least on my patches | |
| 19:00:53 | dansmith | well, I like to look at code first, but sometimes forget to go back | |
| 19:01:00 | dansmith | mriedem: thanks for recheckin' mah thing | |
| 19:01:48 | mriedem | hey, it's my pleasure | |
| 19:01:54 | mriedem | ;P | |
| 19:05:01 | mriedem | brinzhang keeps pushing this spec since berlin and i just don't see the justification for it in case others want to pile on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/580336/ | |
| 19:05:08 | mriedem | it also requires changing what is now the swap volume only api | |
| 19:05:15 | mriedem | which could get a bit weird | |
| 19:25:48 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Add functional regression test for bug 1849409 https://review.opendev.org/690720 | |
| 19:25:48 | openstack | bug 1849409 in OpenStack Compute (nova) rocky "openstack server list --deleted --limit -1 hangs" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1849409 - Assigned to Matt Riedemann (mriedem) | |
| 19:25:48 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Fix listing deleted servers with a marker https://review.opendev.org/690721 | |
| 19:27:11 | mriedem | melwitt: i worked around the rocky-only intermittent failure you noticed in ^ | |
| 19:35:54 | artom | mriedem, re: brinzhang's spec - isn't that heat's job? | |
| 19:38:08 | artom | (Not updating volume attachments, deleting related things as a unit) | |
| 19:38:15 | artom | (Which is what they want... right?) | |
| 19:39:28 | artom | Oh, just read your last comment | |
| 19:39:38 | dansmith | artom: this is more about instances that were not created with the flag set the way they want it, right/ | |
| 19:40:04 | artom | I was thinking "make this volume go away when its instance does" | |
| 19:40:16 | dansmith | right but you can already do that today | |
| 19:40:24 | dansmith | if you get the flag set when you create the instance | |
| 19:40:28 | artom | Not "oops, I messed up, please keep this volume when its instance goes away" | |
| 19:40:34 | dansmith | if you don't, then you might want to change it later, which I thought is the point of this spec | |
| 19:40:35 | artom | dansmith, right, they want to set it after | |
| 19:42:08 | artom | ... besides the wrong API stuff that mriedem raised, seems reasonable to me... | |
| 20:08:34 | mriedem | the use case is you boot from volume with delete_on_termination=True, do some awesome stuff in the volume and then realize you don't want it deleted when you delete the server so you want to change delete_on_termination=False, | |
| 20:08:59 | mriedem | which you can do since 2.79 with non-root volumes, | |
| 20:09:10 | mriedem | and you can create a snapshot of the server which will create volume snapshots since forever | |
| 20:09:36 | mriedem | so it seems like a waste of effort to bake that all into an API that is already solely just dealing with swap volume semantics | |
| 20:10:39 | mriedem | obviously we *can* do this but i'm saying it doesn't seem justifiable that we *should* do it | |
| 20:11:15 | gmann | efried: can you remove -2 on this, spec is merged and I am rebasing the series now - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/674038/ | |
| 20:12:34 | mriedem | another spec that is a good example of things we can do but i'm not sure we should https://review.opendev.org/#/c/682302/ | |
| 20:12:48 | mriedem | but we kind of opened pandora's box when adding changePassword in the first place | |
| 20:13:25 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add new default roles and mapping in policy base class https://review.opendev.org/645452 | |
| 20:15:08 | mriedem | heh http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-October/010429.html | |
| 20:15:38 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add policy deprecation fixture and Suppress warnings in tests https://review.opendev.org/676670 | |
| 20:15:56 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add new default roles in os-services API policies https://review.opendev.org/648480 | |
| 20:16:08 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Pass the target in os-services APIs policy https://review.opendev.org/676688 | |
| 20:20:05 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add test coverage of existing admin_actions policies https://review.opendev.org/657698 | |
| 20:20:30 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Introduce scope_types in Admin Actions https://review.opendev.org/657823 | |
| 20:20:57 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add new default roles in Admin Action API policies https://review.opendev.org/676682 | |
| 20:21:14 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Ensure we pass a target in admin actions https://review.opendev.org/663095 | |
| 20:23:52 | efried | gmann: done | |
| 20:24:13 | gmann | johnthetubaguy: melwitt ^^ rebased the policy patches. this and all its base patches are one set of os-services API policy change - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676688/2 | |
| 20:24:15 | gmann | efried: thanks | |
| 20:27:50 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add test coverage of existing admin_actions policies https://review.opendev.org/657698 | |
| 20:28:05 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Introduce scope_types in Admin Actions https://review.opendev.org/657823 | |