| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-02-10 | |||
| 23:55:12 | sean-k-mooney | ya its weird | |
| 23:55:36 | sean-k-mooney | i did spell consttants wong but thats what i fixed locally | |
| 23:55:56 | sean-k-mooney | oh.... | |
| 23:56:05 | sean-k-mooney | that would do it https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/773792/1/nova/network/neutron.py#2039 | |
| 23:57:04 | sean-k-mooney | if i dont ask for the field... then my numa_policy = port.get(consttants.NUMA_POLICY, None) is always going to be None | |
| 23:57:47 | sean-k-mooney | we normlly dont filter like that so i never check for it | |
| 23:58:10 | melwitt | oh oops | |
| 23:58:42 | melwitt | at least you found it :) | |
| 23:58:46 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 23:59:07 | sean-k-mooney | i did have a probalem before where i also forgot to trun the extention on in neutorn fully | |
| 23:59:38 | sean-k-mooney | so i would create the port, osc would show the policy in the port in the respocne but neutorn never saved it to the db on its end | |
| #openstack-nova - 2021-02-11 | |||
| 00:00:30 | melwitt | sounds like good times all around | |
| 00:00:49 | sean-k-mooney | neutron list all exteions that are avaiabel not just the ones that are enabled which is __tottaly__ inutitive and not confusing at all.... | |
| 00:01:32 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure what the best way to express sarcasium is on irc | |
| 00:01:38 | melwitt | yeah.. whenever I wander into other projects code where they still have extensions, it confuses me | |
| 00:02:07 | melwitt | that was clear sarcasm :) some people use /s though | |
| 00:02:08 | sean-k-mooney | i was originally affrait i forgot a mircoversion and it silent droped it or something | |
| 00:02:27 | sean-k-mooney | *affraid | |
| 00:02:52 | sean-k-mooney | ok ill fix that try it again and if it doesnt work its tomrrows problem | |
| 00:03:14 | melwitt | sounds like a plan | |
| 00:03:18 | sean-k-mooney | although its technially now 00:03 here so i guess todays problem | |
| 00:06:31 | melwitt | 🤞😬🤞 | |
| 00:15:21 | sean-k-mooney | hum ok | |
| 00:15:27 | sean-k-mooney | so that didnt work | |
| 00:15:37 | melwitt | :( | |
| 00:15:47 | sean-k-mooney | and its not in the pci request in either the api db or instance_extra table | |
| 00:15:54 | sean-k-mooney | but both of those are not the same either | |
| 00:16:30 | sean-k-mooney | the instance_extra table version has "alias_name": null, "is_new": false, "numa_policy": null, | |
| 00:16:40 | sean-k-mooney | which are not in the request spec version at all | |
| 00:17:13 | sean-k-mooney | so i think this is not geting saved back into the request spec | |
| 00:17:44 | sean-k-mooney | and then on the compute node i guess we load it form the db which save the default for numa_policy back | |
| 00:17:59 | sean-k-mooney | and well the other fields | |
| 00:19:00 | sean-k-mooney | although no | |
| 00:19:10 | sean-k-mooney | if we loaded it from the db teh default would be different | |
| 00:19:12 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/5b52db409b00e6257e83598efa0d8528ebe380e0/nova/objects/instance_pci_requests.py#L99-L100 | |
| 00:20:09 | sean-k-mooney | thats just weird but ya not nows problem | |
| 02:08:11 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/placement master: Implement secure RBAC for reshaper https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/774827 | |
| 02:08:20 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/placement master: policy: Add releasenote for RBAC work https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/774654 | |
| 09:12:34 | bauzas | and type hints :p | |
| 09:12:40 | bauzas | stephenfin: :p | |
| 09:13:26 | stephenfin | I don't get the dislike, tbh. They're really just structured comments that are (usually) checked for correctness | |
| 09:13:33 | stephenfin | who doesn't want self-checking comments :) | |
| 09:13:39 | stephenfin | *self-validating? | |
| 09:13:59 | stephenfin | I can stick in a follow-up patch to add them though, seeing as I have them worked out already :D | |
| 09:16:26 | kashyap | stephenfin: FWIW, yeah, I definitely see the value of function annotations | |
| 09:20:13 | kashyap | Although, IIRC, they annotations aren't enforced at runtime | |
| 09:20:31 | stephenfin | not without specific configuration, no | |
| 09:21:49 | stephenfin | https://github.com/beartype/beartype | |
| 09:21:53 | stephenfin | and libraries like it | |
| 09:22:24 | stephenfin | Pretty sure Dropbox or Instagram or someone has a library for doing that too | |
| 09:23:43 | kashyap | I see | |
| 09:23:59 | kashyap | stephenfin: Do you know of any big projects enforcing it? | |
| 09:24:36 | stephenfin | At runtime? Not sure. Most of Instagram and Dropbox's codebases and type hinted now though, afaik | |
| 09:24:40 | stephenfin | Sphinx uses it everywhere | |
| 09:25:03 | kashyap | (Yeah, at runtime.) I see | |
| 09:28:37 | bauzas | stephenfin: well, static typing is nice, but we have reviews and docstrings | |
| 09:28:53 | bauzas | code reviews* | |
| 09:29:41 | bauzas | it's just adding more complexity for the sake of nothing, since we have documentation for parameters | |
| 09:30:19 | stephenfin | We don't though, and where we do, I've found it's been wrong more than a few times | |
| 09:30:28 | stephenfin | I've already caught a few bugs with what little type hinting I've done | |
| 09:31:10 | bauzas | ~o~ | |
| 09:31:22 | bauzas | anyway, I'll add them ;) | |
| 09:32:57 | openstackgerrit | Vishal Manchanda proposed openstack/nova master: Docs: Correct ``Password injection using the dashboard`` Explanation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/775084 | |
| 09:55:26 | gibi | I accept mypy, but I also have some reservation about the ROI of it. Adding proper typing for nested dict passed around is mentally hard and we use a lot of such dicts in our code. | |
| 09:56:52 | gibi | sometimes it feels like we need to retrofit into nova a whole static type hierarchy just to be able to express typing things properly | |
| 09:57:17 | gibi | and than I feel bad about using a dynamic language for that | |
| 10:08:59 | kashyap | gibi: Hey, when you get a moment | |
| 10:09:11 | gibi | kashyap: hit me | |
| 10:09:18 | kashyap | gibi: On the test coverage here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/774240/5/nova/tests/unit/virt/libvirt/test_driver.py#1524 | |
| 10:09:30 | kashyap | gibi: I'm right now setting up an env to test it properly (in a real env) | |
| 10:10:24 | kashyap | gibi: That said, we don't want to invest too much time right now to do many unit tests there -- as we want to replace (in a different patch series) that part of _check_cpu_compatibility() | |
| 10:10:33 | kashyap | ... to use better and improved libvirt CPU APIs | |
| 10:11:14 | gibi | hm, I remember that patch, where we are with that being merged? | |
| 10:11:15 | kashyap | gibi: It is this one: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/762330/ | |
| 10:11:19 | kashyap | gibi: Good question | |
| 10:11:33 | kashyap | gibi: That patch needs to be split out into 3 or 4 patches, as I noted in the review | |
| 10:11:47 | kashyap | I might do it if chengsheng doesn't respond there. | |
| 10:12:04 | kashyap | _But_: that needs to be done _on top of_ the disable CPU flags patch | |
| 10:12:43 | kashyap | Because, that helps solve a more important problem for operatorswith lesser code, without having to fix the whole world | |
| 10:12:44 | gibi | so you say that now it is hard and therefore costly to add unit test for _check_cpu_compatibility but after https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/762330/ there will be proper coverage | |
| 10:12:48 | gibi | ? | |
| 10:13:08 | kashyap | gibi: Indeed, that's what I mean. You make a good point there, no questions | |
| 10:13:43 | kashyap | gibi: I mean, we keep the unit tests that I included in there, for the minimal coverage there is | |
| 10:14:39 | kashyap | gibi: Also, please take a 4 minutes to read this context I wrote for today's meeting at the bottom: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova#Agenda_for_next_meeting | |
| 10:15:20 | gibi | kashyap: OK, let's expedite https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/762330/ after your fix lands | |
| 10:15:22 | kashyap | That should give you context on _why_ I'm doing what I'm doing. And why I'm trying to keep it short and small - to be backportable | |
| 10:16:46 | kashyap | gibi: Yep; thank you. | |
| 10:16:54 | gibi | I need to recover your topic on the agenda, it seems stephenfin overwrote it :) | |
| 10:17:14 | kashyap | Oh no, what have you done, stephenfin :D | |
| 10:17:19 | stephenfin | whoops | |
| 10:17:47 | kashyap | No problem :) I can re-add it -- assuming gibi is already not doing it | |
| 10:17:55 | gibi | I will fix it | |
| 10:18:11 | kashyap | I spent half hour writing clear sentences to reduce cognitive load, and stephenfin, you erased it :D | |
| 10:18:28 | gibi | this is partially my fault as I did not clean up the agenda after the last meeting | |
| 10:18:49 | kashyap | No problem; Wiki maint is a chore | |
| 10:21:20 | gibi | kashyap: fixed it, read it. It looks OK to me. If no objection on the meeting then I will approve the bp | |
| 10:22:01 | kashyap | gibi: Understood; we can talk there. | |
| 10:22:06 | gibi | coo | |
| 10:22:07 | gibi | l | |
| 10:22:48 | kashyap | Thanks! /me goes to fix his env. meanwhile to test the damn patch for real | |