| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-03-02 | |||
| 09:58:34 | lyarwood | stephenfin: have people dropped them on master? | |
| 09:58:38 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: fwiw, dropping indirect dependencies from l-c can cause dependency resolution to devolve into a multi-hour slog, since the combinatorial matrix of possible versions for those indirect dependencies is huuuuuuge | |
| 09:58:39 | lyarwood | stephenfin: I noticed the stable stuff | |
| 09:58:50 | stephenfin | lyarwood: they're totally gone from oslo and neutron. Likely many other projects also | |
| 10:01:05 | lyarwood | well well well | |
| 10:01:30 | lpetrut | Cinder still uses lower constraints. most of them have been bumped here: https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commit/d3ffa90baa959530eaa1cd1d4e3800fbe9148806#diff-f868e67d7bc10a25bc6baaea42ed5c763b42174505e4441349a52cf60dc007b0 | |
| 10:01:34 | lyarwood | it doesn't really resolve our issue however | |
| 10:01:44 | lyarwood | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/763550/12..14/requirements.txt <- as os-brick causes this as well | |
| 10:01:47 | lyarwood | that IMHO we can't avoid | |
| 10:02:05 | lyarwood | why don't I spend some time later today breaking that out into another change you can rebase on lpetrut | |
| 10:02:25 | lyarwood | there's a load of bugfixes in there that we need anyway outside of the new Windows RBD stuff | |
| 10:02:28 | stephenfin | that's...downgrading most things? | |
| 10:02:48 | lyarwood | yeah what the | |
| 10:03:13 | lpetrut | not quite, it's flipped :) | |
| 10:03:13 | stephenfin | That seems off. We won't be allowed to specify a lower limit that os-brick, but we should be able to specify a higher one | |
| 10:03:37 | lyarwood | oh right because you reverted it so the diff is the wrong way around | |
| 10:03:39 | stephenfin | ahh | |
| 10:03:41 | stephenfin | okay :) | |
| 10:03:48 | stephenfin | phew | |
| 10:03:50 | lpetrut | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/763550/12/lower-constraints.txt | |
| 10:04:00 | stephenfin | yeah, I have no issues with bumping l-c | |
| 10:04:18 | stephenfin | the only issue would be if we were to backport this, but it's a feature so that's not an issue | |
| 10:04:59 | lpetrut | awesome. lyarwood: are you ok with going back to patchset 12? | |
| 10:06:14 | lyarwood | lpetrut: I'd like it to be a seperate change if I'm honest but I also don't want to hold you up anymore | |
| 10:07:06 | lyarwood | lpetrut: would you mind if I just broke it out into another change myself and documented the reasons for the increases in a fresh commit? | |
| 10:07:28 | lpetrut | lyarwood: sure, thanks! | |
| 10:07:37 | lyarwood | lpetrut: ack np and sorry for dragging this out | |
| 10:08:34 | lpetrut | np, glad that we managed to reach a consensus :D | |
| 10:14:02 | kashyap | stephenfin: Thank you for picking up the secure boot work! Please add yourself as the co-author / author as you see fit. I don't see your name on one of the patches that you revised. (I haven't looked at all yet; still ploughing through my post-PTO backlog of suff.) | |
| 10:20:54 | openstackgerrit | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Bump the Compute RPC API to version 6.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/761452 | |
| 10:35:42 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Replaces tenant_id with project_id from List/Update Servers APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/764292 | |
| 10:36:35 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Replace all_tenants with all_projects in List Server APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/765311 | |
| 10:37:21 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Replaces tenant_id with project_id from Rebuild Server API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/766380 | |
| 10:38:07 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Replaces tenant_id with project_id from List SG API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/766726 | |
| 11:04:15 | openstackgerrit | James Page proposed openstack/nova stable/train: add functional regression test for bug #1888395 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/759533 | |
| 11:04:33 | openstack | bug 1888395 in OpenStack Compute (nova) train "live migration of a vm using the single port binding work flow is broken in train as a result of the introduction of sriov live migration" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1888395 - Assigned to Billy Olsen (billy-olsen) | |
| 11:15:17 | lyarwood | gibi / stephenfin: stupid question time, we only document direct requirements in requirements.txt, lower-constraints.txt etc right? so in bumping os-brick we don't need to bump everything the new version depends on in our tree? | |
| 11:16:16 | stephenfin | we document direct requirements in the various requirments.txt files. We document everything in lower-constraints.txt | |
| 11:16:38 | stephenfin | I suggested switching to just direct dependencies for lower-constraints.txt also but... | |
| 11:16:49 | lyarwood | well it's working with just os-brick bumped | |
| 11:16:53 | lyarwood | LC that is | |
| 11:16:54 | stephenfin | <stephenfin> sean-k-mooney: fwiw, dropping indirect dependencies from l-c can cause dependency resolution to devolve into a multi-hour slog, since the combinatorial matrix of possible versions for those indirect dependencies is huuuuuuge | |
| 11:17:07 | lyarwood | yeah I see | |
| 11:18:13 | stephenfin | you sure you're testing with pip >= 20.3 ? | |
| 11:18:55 | lyarwood | 20.2.2 | |
| 11:19:06 | stephenfin | yeah, you need to install 20.3+ first | |
| 11:19:21 | stephenfin | that has the new dependency resolver | |
| 11:19:22 | lyarwood | wait that was in the venv | |
| 11:19:34 | lyarwood | 20.3.1 outside but that doesn't matter | |
| 11:20:00 | stephenfin | I think pip might be bundled with virtualenv | |
| 11:20:25 | lyarwood | yeah but I thought I had a new enough version on f33 | |
| 11:21:24 | lyarwood | bumps and tries again | |
| 11:25:14 | lyarwood | cool that's failing correctly now, let me work through these | |
| 11:39:04 | brinzhang0 | stephenfin: how about the novnc feature? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/622336 | |
| 11:39:39 | stephenfin | brinzhang0: I'm thoroughly confused on that now and need to sit down and figure it out | |
| 11:39:43 | brinzhang0 | I saw gibi said we will FF at 11th, can we complete this in this cycle? | |
| 11:40:29 | stephenfin | I'm setting up a dev environment atm to play around with it | |
| 11:40:36 | stephenfin | It might make sense to reshuffle the series so that the tenant ID -> project ID gets 2.89 and I don't know how long it will take to figure this out | |
| 11:40:39 | brinzhang0 | Now we are sopport input password when we open the console, if we do this config | |
| 11:42:14 | brinzhang0 | I am very sorry, the tenant series patches may need much time to back 2.89, Ithink I want to do whatever | |
| 11:42:28 | brinzhang0 | s/want/wont | |
| 11:43:36 | gibi | lyarwood, lpetrut, stephenfin: on the os-brick bump. I'm happy to review an lc bump and I hope it is not as big as the original proposal was. If it needs to be that big then I'm a bit affraid what such amount of change introduces | |
| 11:44:12 | lyarwood | gibi: thankfully it's not, I'm also breaking the os-win bump out into another change | |
| 11:44:32 | gibi | lyarwood: thanks for working on that | |
| 11:45:22 | gibi | stephenfin: on the removal of the indirect deps from lc. Is there a way to print the huge matrix to see where are those deps that needs contraints to significantly reduce the size of the matrix? | |
| 11:46:27 | stephenfin | I'm not sure. I haven't looked into that | |
| 11:46:37 | gibi | stephenfin: ack, I can try to look into that at some point | |
| 11:46:58 | gibi | I assume there are a short list of offender indirect deps | |
| 11:47:03 | gibi | if it is not the case then meh | |
| 11:48:30 | lyarwood | actually I don't need to break os-win out sorry, I thought it also had changes | |
| 11:48:54 | gibi | brinzhang0, stephenfin: I read stephenfin's comment on the vnc series but honeslty I haven't fully grocked the situation. So I trust stephenfin to do the invenstigation as he already started it and has a better view on it than me | |
| 11:49:00 | gibi | lyarwood: ack, no worries | |
| 11:52:23 | brinzhang0 | gibi:There are two sides we need to consider. Now, we can authorican the console for client-->proxy, we need to input the password when we open its console., this is also clarified in the specs. | |
| 11:52:30 | brinzhang0 | gibi: But we dont consider the authorican with proxy-->server yet, this is stephenfin concerned. | |
| 11:53:39 | stephenfin | brinzhang0: That is what has me confused. If we're doing encryption of client -> proxy then why are we setting attributes on the instance via libvirt XML. The instance lives on the server | |
| 11:53:54 | brinzhang0 | gibi: yes, hope stephenfin can give the clear direction, or let we improve it in future. | |
| 11:54:06 | stephenfin | Hence why I'm testing things now | |
| 11:54:20 | gibi | thanks, now I see the confusion | |
| 11:54:30 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: hyper-v rbd volume support https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/763550 | |
| 11:54:31 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: requirements.txt: Bump os-brick to 4.2.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/778177 | |
| 11:54:32 | lyarwood | stephenfin / gibi ; ^ okay that should finally do it for the hyperv rbd stuff | |
| 11:54:55 | lyarwood | lpetrut: ^ also sorry | |
| 11:54:57 | stephenfin | gibi: Yeah, it's the little dance we do in the proxy that's confusing. I'm worked on this before but I've lost much of the context :-( | |
| 11:54:58 | gibi | lyarwood: thanks. I will jump on it before I dissapeare again to a meeting | |
| 11:55:32 | gibi | stephenfin: I'm glad you picket it up, the vnc proxy stuff is a black hole to me at the moment | |
| 11:57:46 | brinzhang0 | stephenfin: one case, if you use the third VNC tools to open the instance's console, taht need to be authorican with the passwsord, it's used for proxy-->server scenario | |
| 11:58:05 | lpetrut | lyarwood: thanks! | |
| 11:58:36 | brinzhang0 | this is also we were used daily^ | |
| 11:58:49 | lpetrut | lyarwood: I'm wondering if there's any way in which we could automate this process, it's quite tedious | |
| 11:59:31 | gibi | lyarwood: I'm +2 on the bump | |
| 11:59:54 | brinzhang0 | stephenfin: we used the VNC tool is vnc viewer, maybe you can try | |
| 12:00:12 | lyarwood | lpetrut: I think the new pip resolver might provide a way of doing this if we wanted to keep lower-constraints.txt around in nova | |
| 12:00:31 | lyarwood | lpetrut: something to bring up at the PTG I think, either we automate this or drop lower-constraints.txt | |
| 12:01:28 | stephenfin | pip doesn't have machinery for this. That's the main issue :-( | |
| 12:01:42 | gibi | here is the ptg etherpad if neede :) https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-xena-ptg | |
| 12:01:54 | stephenfin | There's an open RFE against it (filed by dhellmann iirc) but it needs bodies of course | |
| 12:03:33 | lyarwood | oh it doesn't? | |
| 12:03:54 | lyarwood | huh I had assumed there was a lib or something we could call into to automate it, that's a shame | |
| 12:09:25 | sean-k-mooney | lyarwood: a min version resolver no uncortunetly not | |
| 12:09:52 | sean-k-mooney | lyarwood: we likely should restrict lower constratits to just our direct deps | |