| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-02-17 | |||
| 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 | |
| 18:23:50 | sean-k-mooney | i just dont see why we would bother changin it when it snot broken if we are not going to change it to sdk since that what we want to use long term | |
| 18:24:07 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: we want to drop novaclint as a lib too eventually | |
| 18:24:16 | sean-k-mooney | not just as a cli | |
| 18:24:28 | stephenfin | because the SDK change could be 5 years off, and that ksa change and the related code it needs is there now | |
| 18:24:45 | sean-k-mooney | it does not have to be monoltic | |