| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-12-03 | |||
| 12:04:48 | sean-k-mooney | it kind of feels like you shoudl be doing this in one big patch | |
| 12:05:10 | sean-k-mooney | if its 3 it feels like you need 3 microverions | |
| 12:05:20 | brinzhang_ | no, I wont to do this in one patch | |
| 12:05:53 | brinzhang_ | it's not easy to review, and not easy to manage by me | |
| 12:06:07 | sean-k-mooney | right but since master is ment to be deployable at all times if its 3 patches it strictly speaking should be 3 microverions i think but perhaps we can make an excption here | |
| 12:07:19 | brinzhang_ | sean-k-mooney: i know what you are concern, I try to complete this in Wallaby release | |
| 12:07:41 | sean-k-mooney | i think the best way forward is too have multiple patches but only merge them when all patches are ready | |
| 12:07:56 | brinzhang_ | but might as your concern, may Icannt complete ^^ | |
| 12:08:39 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: gmann any toughts on ^ | |
| 12:09:07 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: gmann the remove-tenant-id changes are really too big to have in one patch | |
| 12:09:19 | brinzhang_ | wan-k-mooney: yeah, it's also good to me, if so, that I should avoid to maintain more microversion keys in all patches | |
| 12:09:44 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: gmann but we also dont want multiple micorverions here | |
| 12:10:49 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang_: in anycase ill try and review it today | |
| 12:11:39 | brinzhang_ | sean-k-mooney: thanks | |
| 12:12:07 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang_: are there more patches in that serise by the way or just the 3 your have pushed | |
| 12:12:29 | brinzhang_ | yeah, I just pushed List Servers APIs changes | |
| 12:13:20 | brinzhang_ | If there is need all patches submited then to review, that you all can ignore my asked above ^^ | |
| 12:13:29 | brinzhang_ | That's nothing | |
| 12:13:58 | sean-k-mooney | well it was more if im reviewing it ill try and review all the patches at the same time | |
| 12:14:13 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp%252Fremove-tenant-id%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) so i was wondering if there were more pending or if that was it | |
| 12:14:19 | sean-k-mooney | they dont all need to be there | |
| 12:14:37 | sean-k-mooney | just wanted to make sure that had all the patches that were currently avaiable | |
| 12:15:43 | brinzhang_ | There a two patches are avaliable, except the policy changes patch, that I want to get help from gmann | |
| 12:16:49 | brinzhang_ | after complete the policy changes, the server list apis change is ok for this microversion, IMO, yes | |
| 12:22:08 | gibi | sean-k-mooney, brinzhang_: what if we merge the changes gradually but not expose the new microversion until the last patch? | |
| 12:22:47 | gibi | what happens if we don't do this change until the last patch? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/764292/5/nova/api/openstack/api_version_request.py#248 | |
| 12:23:40 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: i was wondering about that too i think we did that in the past but if we do we need to diable the new codepaths until the last patch merges | |
| 12:24:59 | brinzhang_ | for example: in the server list apis, I need to remove the tenant_id and all_tenants, and replaced with project_id and all_projects, some places need the version to have a judgement, maybe it's not easy to control all changes if there is not a microversion | |
| 12:25:00 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: why do we need to disable the new codepaths? Not having the microversion 88 published makes those new codepath unreachable | |
| 12:25:12 | brinzhang_ | it's my opinion | |
| 12:25:22 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: oh ok in that case yep that should work | |
| 12:25:33 | gibi | brinzhang_: you do have a microversion it just not available for the client to request it | |
| 12:25:39 | sean-k-mooney | unless a different api change takes the microversion | |
| 12:26:00 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: yeah, another api change can break this | |
| 12:26:05 | gibi | hm hm | |
| 12:26:56 | gibi | so if we want to go this direction then we need to make the api patches serialized | |
| 12:27:03 | gibi | right now | |
| 12:27:09 | gibi | not just at the merge point | |
| 12:27:23 | sean-k-mooney | basically allocate a micro version to them | |
| 12:27:44 | sean-k-mooney | could we do that with placeholder microverions? | |
| 12:28:05 | sean-k-mooney | and change the meaning of the microversion when it merges | |
| 12:28:10 | sean-k-mooney | that a bit of hack | |
| 12:28:19 | sean-k-mooney | bug kind of like the palceholder db migrations | |
| 12:28:53 | gibi | hm | |
| 12:29:00 | sean-k-mooney | allocate 2.88 2.89 and 2.90 to the 3 specs in flight and make them all the same as 2.87 for now | |
| 12:29:09 | brinzhang_ | as your concern above, if we placeholder microversion, and I am not completed this in this release, it will be a bad news | |
| 12:29:13 | sean-k-mooney | that still not great | |
| 12:29:42 | gibi | how far the other two patches from merge? | |
| 12:29:56 | gibi | if we could merge them quickly then this problem is solved for the cycle | |
| 12:30:06 | gibi | (assuming no new spec proposed api changes for wallaby) | |
| 12:30:36 | gibi | e.g. we allocating the microversion by merging the two small feature first | |
| 12:30:40 | brinzhang_ | there is a noVNC spec reqired a microversion also in my list | |
| 12:31:46 | gibi | so the novnc password, and the hypervisor api modernization are the in flight api changes besides the tenat_id one | |
| 12:32:45 | brinzhang_ | yes, if there are all quickly completed fastly, it would be better. | |
| 12:33:24 | gibi | I don't see open patches for the hyperisor modernizaton :/ | |
| 12:33:50 | brinzhang_ | As I know the noVNC implentation code is ready to review, my staff complete it today, all tests: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/622336 | |
| 12:34:42 | sean-k-mooney | well there is also https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/749505 | |
| 12:35:18 | sean-k-mooney | that one proably shoudl be merged first for 2.88 | |
| 12:35:31 | sean-k-mooney | although it could be after | |
| 12:35:54 | sean-k-mooney | we do wnat to get that done sooner rather then later however | |
| 12:36:47 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: whats your plance regardign fixing all the http status codes ^ | |
| 12:37:11 | stephenfin | I don't really have one. It sounds very low priority. I might do it if I get some other stuff landed first | |
| 12:37:18 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: looks like you havent worked on it in 3 months will you be updating that soon or in the new year | |
| 12:37:43 | sean-k-mooney | ok so sound like we shoudl not wait for that one so | |
| 12:37:53 | stephenfin | no, definitely not | |
| 12:38:50 | gibi | stephenfin: thanks for the info | |
| 12:39:09 | stephenfin | do I note have the hypervisor one up? | |
| 12:39:12 | stephenfin | not | |
| 12:39:19 | sean-k-mooney | you do i think | |
| 12:39:30 | zigo | Hi. When building Nova 22.0.1, I get 1787 unit test failures like this one: http://paste.openstack.org/show/800690/ | |
| 12:39:30 | zigo | while nova 22.0.0 does build without any issue. | |
| 12:39:30 | zigo | Is this a known problem? | |
| 12:39:34 | gibi | I don't find it here https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp%252Fmodernize-os-hypervisors-api%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) | |
| 12:39:59 | stephenfin | whoops, wrong topic | |
| 12:39:59 | stephenfin | https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp%252Fdeprecate-os-hypervisors%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) | |
| 12:40:28 | brinzhang_ | so the noVNC that we can promote priority, maybe it's the fast one that closes to merge | |
| 12:40:59 | stephenfin | gibi: fixed | |
| 12:40:59 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang_: gibi have we been doing runway this cycle | |
| 12:41:10 | zigo | If nobody knows, then I can probably bisect the 22.0.0 to 22.0.1 patches ... | |
| 12:41:25 | gibi | zigo: give me a se | |
| 12:41:25 | gibi | c | |
| 12:41:34 | gibi | stephenfin: thanks | |
| 12:41:36 | sean-k-mooney | not really | |
| 12:41:49 | sean-k-mooney | ok can we add the password one to https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-runways-wallaby | |
| 12:42:01 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: the etherpad is up there it is just only brinzhang_ who put thing is nit | |
| 12:42:06 | gibi | thing in it | |
| 12:42:19 | brinzhang_ | sean-k-mooney: yeah, and I already used it to put cyborg support shelve/unshelve feature, and I will add the noVNC patch later in the runway | |
| 12:44:42 | gibi | zigo: looked at the diff but nothing popped out, so I guess it is bisect time. | |
| 12:45:02 | zigo | gibi: Thanks for looking, I'll try then. | |
| 12:45:12 | gibi | zigo: let me know what you found | |
| 12:45:30 | sean-k-mooney | yep so if we do noVNC then os-hyperviors then teants change? | |
| 12:46:10 | sean-k-mooney | that shoudl avoid it assumeing stephens paatch is already ready for review otherwise move os-hyperviors to 2.90 | |
| 12:48:08 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: as soon as we merging the first patch of the tenant_id referring internally to 2.88 (or any specific microversion) we commit to not have any other microversion bump merged until we finish the tenant_id work. I'm affraid of such commitment | |
| 12:49:02 | brinzhang_ | gibi: agree | |
| 12:49:58 | brinzhang_ | if I cannot complete it in Wallaby release, the 2.88 just suit for part of apis | |
| 12:51:05 | brinzhang_ | but if wait for all patches submited, and ready to review, there will be a heavy work | |
| 12:52:13 | gibi | there is no easy solution | |
| 12:52:14 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang_: merging it would block all other api work however so really we need ti to be close before we merge the first patch | |
| 12:52:25 | vinay_m | hello every one, i have a devstack setup on a baremetal, and i have created a image out of snapshot of a openstack VM install with vepc software,when im launching vms with this image not able to ping or ssh , while vms with cirros or some other works fine | |
| 12:53:05 | vinay_m | not able to figure out what could be issue | |