| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-02-17 | |||
| 18:00:48 | stephenfin | bauzas: ty.Optional[bool] | |
| 18:00:50 | bauzas | gibi: stephenfin: the whole reason why I hate mypy, it overcomplicates things | |
| 18:00:56 | bauzas | stephenfin: just saw it | |
| 18:01:11 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: we can agreee to disagree on that :) | |
| 18:01:33 | stephenfin | yeah :) | |
| 18:01:40 | bauzas | https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/ is my new bed book | |
| 18:02:57 | openstackgerrit | Jessie Lass proposed openstack/nova master: Add emulation support if host arch != guest arch. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/772156 | |
| 18:04:34 | bauzas | stephenfin: question, don't you feel we duplicate information between docstrings and type hints ? | |
| 18:04:50 | bauzas | of course, we will miss static type checking with docstrings | |
| 18:05:11 | bauzas | but from a reviewer perspective, this is the exact same metadata | |
| 18:05:26 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: yes but i would prefer to delete the doc sting if i had to choose | |
| 18:05:51 | stephenfin | gibi already said as much in a review. mypy is for types information, docstring are for context | |
| 18:06:06 | sean-k-mooney | i never really like having the parmaters in the doc stings. they always just felt like a hack due to a lack of typing | |
| 18:06:08 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: if the API docs are autogenerated based on type hints, I could imagine it | |
| 18:06:21 | stephenfin | that could be done quite easily with Sphinx | |
| 18:06:27 | bauzas | I know | |
| 18:06:28 | stephenfin | except we don't publish API docs so it's a moot point | |
| 18:06:31 | bauzas | is it done already ? | |
| 18:06:40 | stephenfin | it might well be. I haven't looked | |
| 18:06:45 | bauzas | stephenfin: well, we don't publish them, but you can introspect them | |
| 18:06:46 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: well we have the api ref | |
| 18:06:56 | bauzas | yuuuuuuuuuup | |
| 18:06:56 | sean-k-mooney | https://docs.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/ | |
| 18:07:05 | sean-k-mooney | is that not the api docs | |
| 18:07:09 | bauzas | and some methods are documented | |
| 18:07:30 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: nah, I meant the Python API | |
| 18:07:42 | sean-k-mooney | i use those daylie more then any other docs bar maybe https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html | |
| 18:07:49 | stephenfin | i.e. https://docs.openstack.org/oslo.config/latest/reference/api/modules.html | |
| 18:07:54 | stephenfin | we don't need that since we're not an API | |
| 18:07:58 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: oh like you would do with doxigen | |
| 18:07:58 | stephenfin | *a library | |
| 18:08:01 | stephenfin | yeah | |
| 18:08:02 | sean-k-mooney | to have module docs | |
| 18:08:17 | stephenfin | bauzas: you can introspect the type hints too | |
| 18:08:50 | sean-k-mooney | yep and docs string can then just document the function not the types | |
| 18:09:02 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. what it sment to do and if there are any preconditions/post conditions | |
| 18:10:14 | stephenfin | yeah, the "meaning" of the parameters | |
| 18:11:08 | sean-k-mooney | anyway i feel like i shoudl get some work done today so i better go do that :) | |
| 18:12:57 | bauzas | OH MAAAAAAAN | |
| 18:13:30 | bauzas | I eventually found why lower-constraints job is failing | |
| 18:13:35 | bauzas | /o\ | |
| 18:13:52 | bauzas | stephenfin: we can't call neutron_client.list_segments() as you proposed | |
| 18:14:05 | bauzas | because the oldest neutron client we support doesn't have it | |
| 18:14:11 | stephenfin | just bump neutronclient? | |
| 18:14:31 | sean-k-mooney | well that is why having lower constratins is still valuable | |
| 18:14:32 | bauzas | stephenfin: with this change ? woah | |
| 18:14:41 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah, I kiss this job | |
| 18:14:47 | sean-k-mooney | even if we only list our direct dependcies | |
| 18:14:49 | bauzas | because it showed a potential issue | |
| 18:14:55 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 18:15:08 | stephenfin | bauzas: Then rebase your work on top of https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/706295 :) | |
| 18:15:17 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: stephenfin: you guys okay with bumping the neutron client for such purpose ? | |
| 18:15:22 | stephenfin | that'll do the bump for you | |
| 18:15:27 | stephenfin | yup, no issues from me | |
| 18:15:30 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: the alterneive might be to use the sdk but if neutron client did not have it id ont think the sdk will | |
| 18:15:51 | stephenfin | nah, let's not complicate things further. neutronclient works fine | |
| 18:16:06 | sean-k-mooney | am how big a bump | |
| 18:16:09 | sean-k-mooney | i think yes | |
| 18:16:16 | sean-k-mooney | espcally if our current min is quite old | |
| 18:16:18 | artom | bauzas, sorry, 1:1. Oui, c'est un point. | |
| 18:16:25 | stephenfin | bauzas: If you've a choice, can you choose 7.1.0 to avoid conflicts with https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/706295 please | |
| 18:16:44 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: stephenfin: yeah, will then bump neutronclient to 7.1.0 to avoid the conflict | |
| 18:17:00 | bauzas | hope that gibi will be happy too | |
| 18:17:01 | stephenfin | ta | |
| 18:17:12 | sean-k-mooney | oph i shoudl review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/706295 | |
| 18:17:21 | sean-k-mooney | i did not know you were doing that | |
| 18:17:39 | sean-k-mooney | why are you doing that by the way | |
| 18:17:44 | sean-k-mooney | is it needed for something | |
| 18:17:47 | sean-k-mooney | or just because | |
| 18:18:35 | stephenfin | it's less confusing IMO. I don't think we should reinvent the wheel | |
| 18:18:49 | sean-k-mooney | going form ksa back to neutron client is a regression though | |
| 18:18:50 | stephenfin | if there's a client that does things for us, let's delegate to them | |
| 18:18:57 | sean-k-mooney | we should be movign to the sdk | |
| 18:19:10 | sean-k-mooney | using ksa was a step on that move | |
| 18:19:20 | stephenfin | Maybe a sideways step more so than a regression, I think | |
| 18:19:28 | stephenfin | Nah, it was because neutronclient didn't support the thing | |
| 18:19:38 | sean-k-mooney | well it ws converted from neutorn client to ksa at somepoint i think | |
| 18:19:43 | stephenfin | Nope | |
| 18:19:52 | stephenfin | I added the feature to neutronclient. It didn't exist before :) | |
| 18:20:04 | sean-k-mooney | ok well using neutorn clinet more feels liek a regression since eventually we want to remove it | |
| 18:20:05 | stephenfin | Also, moving to sdk is a _lot_ of work. We saw that with the ironic series previously | |
| 18:20:29 | sean-k-mooney | we still use the ironic clinet in places | |
| 18:20:37 | stephenfin | My point exactly :) | |
| 18:20:40 | sean-k-mooney | that was never finsihed | |
| 18:20:49 | stephenfin | Wouldn't the ksa calls be replaced by sdk also? | |
| 18:20:57 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 18:21:13 | stephenfin | Right, so neutronclient gets us simpler code for now, and when we switch we're replacing one thing rather than two | |
| 18:21:22 | sean-k-mooney | but move backward | |
| 18:21:41 | sean-k-mooney | it would be better to go striat form ksa to sdk | |
| 18:21:43 | stephenfin | I don't see why though. neutronclient is actively supported | |
| 18:22:12 | stephenfin | I mean, I realise that one client to rule them all is better in the long run | |
| 18:22:26 | sean-k-mooney | well this isnt an osc thng | |
| 18:22:33 | stephenfin | one library so | |
| 18:22:34 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Regression test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/776250 | |
| 18:22:37 | sean-k-mooney | its related | |
| 18:22:50 | sean-k-mooney | ya its a libvary that is not ment to be used by any project outside of openstack | |
| 18:22:55 | stephenfin | I don't get why neutronclient is worse than a homemade ksa invocation | |
| 18:23:03 | sean-k-mooney | but enven then we wanted ot encurage the project to stop using them | |
| 18:23:17 | stephenfin | eh, yes and no | |
| 18:23:30 | stephenfin | we want to drop use of the project specific CLIs | |