| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-12-05 | |||
| 10:17:49 | stephenfin | tox -> flake8 (hacking) | |
| 10:17:58 | stephenfin | pre-commit -> flake8 (hacking) | |
| 10:18:07 | stephenfin | it's two different ways to achieve the same end goal | |
| 10:18:13 | bauzas | stephenfin: anyway, sent to the gate | |
| 10:18:19 | stephenfin | bauzas: ta | |
| 10:18:28 | zbr_ | so you adopt the tool without changing how user is calling it, and more important without asking them to install a new tool. | |
| 10:18:39 | zbr_ | just having python and tox is usually enough | |
| 10:19:10 | stephenfin | I have flake8 integrated into my editor because it makes my life easier | |
| 10:19:16 | stephenfin | but I don't force people to do the same | |
| 10:19:19 | stephenfin | ditto for pre-commit | |
| 10:19:32 | stephenfin | so long as flake8 is passing, I don't care how people check things | |
| 10:19:45 | stephenfin | pre-commit is just another way to do that check | |
| 10:20:15 | stephenfin | on top of 'tox -e pep8', 'tox -e flake8', random editor integration, etc. | |
| 10:20:48 | zbr_ | stephenfin: yeah, another way. who said you would loose ability to use flake8 in your editor | |
| 10:21:17 | stephenfin | no one did | |
| 10:21:29 | zbr_ | huh.... :D | |
| 10:21:43 | stephenfin | I don't get the point? | |
| 10:22:21 | zbr_ | I was explaining why I find useful to call pre-commit from tox, also makes very easy to integrate with zuul, without gaving to add any extra configs. | |
| 10:24:07 | zbr_ | in fact tox itself is doing it, https://github.com/tox-dev/tox/blob/master/tox.ini#L68-L70 | |
| 10:24:55 | stephenfin | could be one to do in the future so, once it's bedded in | |
| 10:25:13 | stephenfin | for now though, I've had a hard enough time getting _something_ in that I'll take the win I have and be happy with it :) | |
| 10:26:12 | zbr_ | stephenfin: i empathise with your pain... i know exactly what you mean. | |
| 10:29:53 | openstackgerrit | Eric Xie proposed openstack/nova master: Host CPU compatibility check does not make sense on AArch64; skip CPU comparison https://review.opendev.org/589769 | |
| 10:48:29 | openstackgerrit | Eric Xie proposed openstack/nova master: Skip cpu comparison on AArch64 https://review.opendev.org/589769 | |
| 11:07:29 | sean-k-mooney | zbr_: for what its worth i still dont know of any project that i have worked on that has tox -e linters | |
| 11:09:57 | sean-k-mooney | zbr_: i may have but if i did i was not aware of it. its not part of the pti https://github.com/openstack/governance/tree/master/reference/pti so its not require for project to implement and you are the first person who has raised it as a thing | |
| 11:10:33 | sean-k-mooney | most project i was aware of if they ran addtional linters added them to the pep8 tox enve | |
| 11:11:00 | zbr_ | sean-k-mooney: http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=testenv%3Alinters&i=nope&files=tox.ini&repos= reports 201 repos, and is one of the few officially supported environments: https://docs.openstack.org/infra/openstack-zuul-jobs/jobs.html#job-openstack-tox-linters | |
| 11:11:01 | sean-k-mooney | i belive neutron still adds extra linters to there pep8 tox env | |
| 11:11:27 | zbr_ | mainly is seen as a replacement for the older pep8 | |
| 11:11:58 | zbr_ | sean-k-mooney: that's a perfect alternative, mainly is the same, just a different name to avoid confusions. | |
| 11:12:10 | zbr_ | i used pep8 too in several places, for convenience. | |
| 11:12:29 | zbr_ | even if is wasn't really pep8, it was flake8 + 10 others inside. | |
| 11:13:42 | sean-k-mooney | looking at that is mainly openstack ansible and windmil + some test projects | |
| 11:13:57 | zbr_ | on at least one project I made an "alias" to point pep8 -> linters, just to keep it working for the user. i hate to force people to change habits, especially good ones. | |
| 11:14:02 | sean-k-mooney | non of the core project or service project actully use linters which is why im not familar with it | |
| 11:14:15 | zigo | eandersson: What package do you need to be updated in Debian? | |
| 11:14:52 | zbr_ | sean-k-mooney: if you have pep8, keep using it and just document its more broad goal. | |
| 11:14:57 | sean-k-mooney | zbr_: sure im not really against tox -e linters | |
| 11:17:02 | zbr_ | sean-k-mooney: in fact I was considering altering the zuul jobs to introspect tox file and to run whatever they find linters or pep8. If I do this it would be much easier to projects to migrate to the more generic one. Now is almost impossible to remove openstack-tox-pep8 job as is deep inside defaults. | |
| 11:17:44 | sean-k-mooney | its just 200 project repos which is about 50% openstack stack ansible does not mean its a common practice in openstack when we have thoasands of repos in opendev orgs | |
| 11:17:47 | zbr_ | i already talked with infra about this about but i did not had time to go into action yet. | |
| 11:17:59 | zbr_ | true | |
| 11:18:17 | sean-k-mooney | zbr_: to do that you would need to modify the project testing interface | |
| 11:18:23 | sean-k-mooney | which require a tc vote | |
| 11:18:55 | zbr_ | that is why i was considering the smart linter idea, because it could allow people to adopt newer method without breaking existing users. | |
| 11:19:03 | sean-k-mooney | zbr_: no | |
| 11:19:14 | sean-k-mooney | that would be still a violation of the testing interface | |
| 11:19:33 | sean-k-mooney | if you want to change it then you shoudl propose a governace motion via a patch | |
| 11:20:05 | zbr_ | i know, but before working on such a change i wanted to get some feedback. | |
| 11:20:43 | sean-k-mooney | min would be we should keep pep8 and have an optional seperate linters target | |
| 11:20:49 | sean-k-mooney | *mine | |
| 11:21:07 | zbr_ | we already have this, probably is more than an year old | |
| 11:21:11 | sean-k-mooney | exitsting project that run addtionall linters in pep8 shoudl move them | |
| 11:21:16 | sean-k-mooney | to the linter target | |
| 11:53:13 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Unify '_wait_until_deleted' implementations https://review.opendev.org/689181 | |
| 11:53:14 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Unify '_build_minimal_create_server_request' implementations https://review.opendev.org/695024 | |
| 11:53:14 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Make '_IntegratedTestBase' subclass 'InstanceHelperMixin' https://review.opendev.org/689182 | |
| 11:58:48 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Remove 'get_invalid_image' https://review.opendev.org/697454 | |
| 12:00:04 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Unify '_wait_until_deleted' implementations https://review.opendev.org/689181 | |
| 12:00:04 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Unify '_build_minimal_create_server_request' implementations https://review.opendev.org/695024 | |
| 12:00:05 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Make '_IntegratedTestBase' subclass 'InstanceHelperMixin' https://review.opendev.org/689182 | |
| 12:00:05 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Remove 'get_invalid_image' https://review.opendev.org/697454 | |
| 12:26:59 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Integrate 'pre-commit' https://review.opendev.org/665518 | |
| 14:02:55 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/train: Cache security group driver https://review.opendev.org/697475 | |
| 14:09:05 | shilpasd | mriedem: requesting to review 'https://review.opendev.org/#/c/612626/ | |
| 14:09:48 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: support pci numa affinity policies in flavor and image https://review.opendev.org/674072 | |
| 14:10:03 | shilpasd | bauzas: requesting you to review 'https://review.opendev.org/#/c/650188/8 Allow compute nodes to use DISK_GB from shared storage RP' as per your priorities | |
| 14:10:13 | bauzas | shilpasd: ack | |
| 14:10:26 | shilpasd | bauzas: thank you | |
| 14:11:09 | shilpasd | @nova core: please review 'https://review.opendev.org/#/c/650188/8 Allow compute nodes to use DISK_GB from shared storage RP' | |
| 14:17:22 | stephenfin | Is anyone else seeing this message when running 'tox -e py36 |
|
| 14:19:46 | mnaser | eandersson: im just about ready to give up on rabbit clusters | |
| 14:24:29 | mriedem | shilpasd: comments on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/694462/ | |
| 14:25:15 | shilpasd | mriedem: thank you for review, will work on them | |
| 14:25:36 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: Cache security group driver https://review.opendev.org/697480 | |
| 14:26:37 | mriedem | stephenfin: trying it | |
| 14:29:24 | mriedem | efried: this is why that multiple possible networks found thing is intermittent https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1831048 | |
| 14:29:24 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1844568 in tempest "duplicate for #1831048 [compute] "create_test_server" if networks is undefined and more than one network is present" [Medium,In progress] - Assigned to Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) | |
| 14:29:36 | mriedem | neutron tests create a new network at the same time we're creating a server and kaboom | |
| 14:30:01 | mriedem | though we shouldn't be running tempest.api.network tests in nova-next, but it could fail during scenario runs or something i guess? | |
| 14:30:08 | mriedem | stephenfin: i didn't get that problem | |
| 14:30:12 | mriedem | i'm on ubuntu bionic | |
| 14:30:20 | stephenfin | okay, it's a Fedora issue | |
| 14:30:22 | stephenfin | mriedem++ thanks | |
| 14:40:04 | mriedem | i wonder if the nova-next job hits that more often because of how we do concurrency differently in that job from others? | |
| 14:40:27 | mriedem | i think tempest-full runs api tests concurrently and scenario tests serially, and i think nova-next runs them all concurretly | |
| 14:43:01 | mriedem | yeah so i bet a network scenario test creates a network while the compute api tests are running and it blows up | |
| 14:44:04 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: for the senario test do we not run those with concurancy 1 | |
| 14:45:40 | sean-k-mooney | but yes i can see how it could fial in if a neutron test created a network in paralle with a compute test although ideally it would do that in a different tenant so that it could not affect other tests | |
| 14:46:03 | mriedem | there is probably a scenario test that creates a public network | |
| 14:46:16 | mriedem | and yes we run all tests, api and scenario, concurrently in nova-next | |
| 14:47:17 | sean-k-mooney | ah ok so we dont do the two pahse execution we do in tempst full wehre it runs all test excpet the senario tests first with concurrency and then runs the senario tests serially | |
| 14:47:35 | sean-k-mooney | ya that would proably make it more likely to fail in nova-next | |
| 14:49:57 | mriedem | all things i just said above | |
| 14:50:56 | mriedem | efried: gibi: so i think it was actually enabling tempest.scenario.test_minbw_allocation_placement.MinBwAllocationPlacementTest.test_qos_min_bw_allocation_basic in nova-next again that is making this worse | |
| 14:51:07 | mriedem | that test creates a public network | |
| 14:51:22 | mriedem | and everything that failed in this job was right around the time that test was running https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/b7872ac3886e4cc7a060c1376a2a3395/log/job-output.txt#79124 | |
| 14:51:37 | mriedem | which is also our spike in failures http://logstash.openstack.org/#dashboard/file/logstash.json?query=message%3A%5C%22Details%3A%20%7B'code'%3A%20409%2C%20'message'%3A%20'Multiple%20possible%20networks%20found%2C%20use%20a%20Network%20ID%20to%20be%20more%20specific.'%7D%5C%22%20AND%20tags%3A%5C%22console%5C%22%20AND%20voting%3A1&from=7d | |
| 14:57:43 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Skip test_minbw_allocation_placement in nova-next job https://review.opendev.org/697491 | |