Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-12-13
16:49:53 finucannot dansmith: I'm heading off, but can you make sure you're happy with https://review.opendev.org/698890 before you leave for the year?
16:50:18 finucannot gmann should probably look at it too, but I think the main concern about us breaking the DevStack default has been resolved now
16:50:34 dansmith finucannot: I skimmed it earlier, it's just reverting the stuff now that the devstack default is py3 yeah/
16:50:45 finucannot 'zactly
16:51:10 dansmith ack fine with me
16:51:14 finucannot ta
16:51:16 dansmith but yeah, gmann
16:51:19 mriedem we might want to consider taking the boot_index part of this spec and doing it on its own https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/train/approved/detach-boot-volume.html#proposed-change since there is some confusion going on in -sdks about knowing when a server is volume-backed or not
16:51:23 finucannot agreed
16:51:30 mriedem and twould be helpful if we exposed the boot_index of the attached volumes
16:51:43 finucannot dansmith: have a good one 🎄
16:51:49 dansmith o/
16:52:08 gmann dansmith: stephenfin +1
16:53:07 gmann its m-1 also so is anyone is break its time foe them to merge the py2 drop patch.
16:53:21 mriedem dansmith: is there a standard way to check the type on a field?
16:53:33 dansmith mriedem: isinstance
16:53:55 mriedem heh yeah i was doing if isinstance(field, fields.ObjectField) but that didn't work
16:54:09 mriedem so i did value = getattr(target_obj, field) and if isinstance(value, fields.ObjectField): but that doens't work either
16:54:11 dansmith should work
16:54:48 dansmith mriedem: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/objects/instance.py#L773
16:54:53 mriedem ok i'll tinker, got a call with HR in 5 minutes
16:54:56 dansmith oh I see what you're doing
16:55:03 dansmith the actual data isn't in the field, the field is in obj_fields
16:55:43 mriedem yeah http://paste.openstack.org/show/787566/
16:55:56 mriedem oh nvm
16:55:57 mriedem i see
16:56:09 mriedem obj_fields yields the field name
16:56:44 dansmith obj_fields is a dict,
16:56:54 dansmith so you need to either get the field by name or iterate over the values()
16:57:19 mriedem @property
16:57:19 mriedem def obj_fields(self):
16:57:19 mriedem return list(self.fields.keys()) + self.obj_extra_fields
16:57:30 mriedem fields is the dict
16:57:32 mriedem so yeah i've got you
17:25:19 mriedem huh, i was trying to use the test_objects.MyObj for my test and that was failing the 'field in target_obj' checks but changed to Instance with a nested Flavor and it's working now, so go figure
17:26:44 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix accumulated non-docs nits for cross-cell-resize series https://review.opendev.org/698935
17:37:40 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref: avoid mushy wording around server.image description https://review.opendev.org/698976
17:37:41 openstackgerrit Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/os-traits master: Add a trait that compute manager can handle accelerator requests. https://review.opendev.org/698961
17:39:38 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: api-ref: avoid mushy wording around server.image description https://review.opendev.org/698976
18:13:05 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Move _update_pci_request_spec_with_allocated_interface_name https://review.opendev.org/696574
18:14:43 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Support live migration with qos ports https://review.opendev.org/695905
18:22:34 gibi efried_afk: I'm +2 on the vtpm spec (thanks to my nephew who let me read the diff while watching back to the future 3)
18:38:29 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova-specs master: [ussuri][goal] Drop python 2.7 support https://review.opendev.org/698988
19:14:29 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Add confirm_snapshot_based_resize conductor RPC method https://review.opendev.org/637075
19:18:03 KeithMnemonic dansmith I updated that change with my +1 after verifying the fix in Pike and added you as a reviewer. Thanks for your help!
19:29:16 dansmith ack
19:32:07 efried_afk gibi: thanks!
19:46:15 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: DRY: Build ImageMetaPropsPayload from ImageMetaProps https://review.opendev.org/698803
19:54:59 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: doc: define boot from volume in the glossary https://review.opendev.org/699009
19:55:47 efried gmann: are you keeping up with your own drop-py27-support patches or are repo owners expected to pick them up?
19:56:17 efried Specifically https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698988/ -- I don't mind editing it, just lmk
19:56:27 gmann efried: owner first if they do not do then i push
19:57:19 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova-specs master: [ussuri][goal] Drop python 2.7 support https://review.opendev.org/698988
19:57:47 efried gmann: okay, I updated ^
19:57:51 efried and +2ed
19:58:17 efried oh
19:58:21 gmann efried: that might fail. requirement check job is adjusted for py2 requirement matches only
19:58:22 efried That was, apparently, wrong.
19:58:32 efried I don't know that the nova-specs repo has requirements check tho
19:58:37 efried I wouldn't expect it to.
19:58:56 efried And dropping py2 "support" from nova-specs is a bit pro forma anyway :P
19:59:00 gmann ah yeah. as long as it pass it is fine
19:59:47 gmann at the end all py3 specifier will be cleanup too
19:59:57 efried yeah, looking at the previous run, it's only pep8 and docs.
20:00:01 efried so it ought to work.
20:06:29 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Add --dry-run option to heal_allocations CLI https://review.opendev.org/698525
20:06:30 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Add --instance option to heal_allocations https://review.opendev.org/698529
20:06:30 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: Add BFV wrinkle to TestNovaManagePlacementHealAllocations https://review.opendev.org/698531
20:17:27 mriedem efried: i replied for gibi on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/696574/ - see if that answers your question
20:19:22 efried thanks mriedem, +A
20:19:49 efried mriedem: wanna hit this trivial +A? https://review.opendev.org/698988
20:23:49 efried dansmith: bikeshedding opportunity:
20:23:56 mriedem done
20:24:59 efried RequestSpec needs a field (possibly two) to store root_required (which can take required or forbidden (with !) just like regular required). This is parallel with requested_resources.
20:25:31 efried It's what we always wanted to use from those request_filters rather than hacking into the flavor and doing obj_reset_changes(), which I'll fix up at the same time.
20:25:33 mriedem that can't be hacked into the RequestGroup?
20:25:50 efried No, specifically because it's not per request group.
20:25:51 dansmith right, was just going to say.. why isn't it inside requested_resources?
20:26:02 efried That's it's whole raison d'être
20:26:11 efried requested_resources is a list of RequestGroup.
20:26:14 mriedem the issue i always had with the RequestGroup for that traits-only stuff is the RequestGroup stuff in the scheduler made resources required
20:26:35 dansmith oh because requested_resources is a list of requestgroup objects
20:27:09 dansmith that field probably should have been an ObjectField('PlacementyShit')
20:27:11 efried well a) pretty sure that's not a thing anymore, I think we did away with that on the placement side; but b) that's exactly what root_required is for: so you can specify required/forbidden traits that you *for sure* want to look for on the root RP, without association with any request groups
20:27:12 mriedem can you have a root unnumbered group or something for modeling this?
20:27:26 mriedem DictOfStringsField(put all the crap)
20:27:58 mriedem so building on RequestGroup as an object would probably just be confusing for tihs right?
20:28:11 efried would make no sense
20:28:24 efried a request has N RequestGroup. It only has one root_required
20:28:39 efried RequestGroup contains resources, traits, aggregates. root_required only traits.
20:28:41 dansmith efried: what is your actual quesiton?
20:28:46 efried what should we name those fields
20:28:54 dansmith field or fields
20:28:54 dansmith ?
20:28:56 efried One for required, one for forbidden. SetOfStringsField.
20:29:03 efried root_required, root_forbidden?
20:29:14 efried root_required_traits, root_forbidden_traits?
20:29:21 mriedem feels like a field explosion
20:29:28 efried requested_root_traits_required, requested_root_traits_forbidden?
20:29:30 dansmith how about we add PlacementyShit and put them on that object, so that when we have the next thing, we don't keep adding placementy fields to reqspec?

Earlier   Later