| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-12-07 | |||
| 16:59:00 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: so today we shoudl be soft deleting them already | |
| 16:59:03 | pslestang | the instance_actions table is soft-deletable | |
| 16:59:15 | sean-k-mooney | and the new config option you would instead hard delete them | |
| 16:59:32 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah I'm assuming we would mark the records soft-deleted in the DB and we would also unmark them when undeleting | |
| 16:59:47 | bauzas | actually, we're at time | |
| 16:59:54 | bauzas | but we can continue off the meeting | |
| 17:00:09 | bauzas | #endmeeting | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Dec 7 17:00:09 2021 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2021/nova.2021-12-07-16.00.html | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2021/nova.2021-12-07-16.00.txt | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2021/nova.2021-12-07-16.00.log.html | |
| 17:00:15 | gibi | I think there is a reason to keep the actions visible after the instance is deleted | |
| 17:00:28 | lyarwood | fun, I did have another topic | |
| 17:00:32 | lyarwood | A quick heads for upstream folks who might not be aware, I'll be stepping away from OpenStack in the new year from ~Jan 28th, moving to a different project within Red Hat. My focus until then is to close out the various open specs, bugfixes etc that I currently have. | |
| 17:00:34 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: today when we soft-delete an instance instance actions are not soft-deleted (I suppose to let the operator have an history on a deleted instane) | |
| 17:00:56 | gibi | lyarwood: I will miss you! | |
| 17:01:04 | gibi | lyarwood: but good luck! | |
| 17:01:08 | elodilles | lyarwood: :-o | |
| 17:01:15 | lyarwood | gibi: thanks | |
| 17:01:16 | gibi | and let me know if help needed to close up things | |
| 17:01:22 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: ah ok then i think that might be a bug then | |
| 17:01:28 | bauzas | lyarwood: sorry, I stopped the meeting on time given i didn't see any other item | |
| 17:01:40 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: we should keep the records in the db for auit use until they are archived | |
| 17:01:41 | lyarwood | oh I'll be chasing for reviews don't worry about that gibi :) | |
| 17:01:56 | lyarwood | bauzas: yeah np I didn't post it in the agenda | |
| 17:01:59 | elodilles | lyarwood: same as gibi says: will miss you (especially at stable team!) :( | |
| 17:02:05 | gmann | lyarwood: ohh. it is great help from you in many areas not just nova where we all will miss your contribution. | |
| 17:02:09 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: agree with that | |
| 17:02:13 | elodilles | lyarwood: good luck with the new position! | |
| 17:02:14 | bauzas | pslestang: sean-k-mooney: I think instance actions be kept when soft-delete isn't a bug but rather made on purpose | |
| 17:02:40 | lyarwood | gmann / elodilles ; thanks both | |
| 17:02:41 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: pslestang i belive is reproting that currently they are not kept | |
| 17:02:42 | gibi | pslestang, sean-k-mooney: I need the instance actions to remind me that I deleted my instance yesterday hence not finding it | |
| 17:02:48 | bauzas | but I'm not opposed to let operators define this behaviour as opt-out | |
| 17:03:21 | bauzas | pslestang: can you then clarify ? | |
| 17:03:23 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: right so my expection is that the instacne action woudl remain until we do archive-delete-rows or whatever that is called | |
| 17:03:24 | gmann | what is purpose of disabling it via config instead just ignore that action record if not needed ? | |
| 17:03:38 | sean-k-mooney | so that we could retrive them for deleted instance to see who deleted them | |
| 17:04:02 | bauzas | gmann: good question, what's the use case ? | |
| 17:04:11 | gibi | I need to drop, but I will read back tomorrow | |
| 17:04:15 | bauzas | not letting the instance action appearing at the API level ? | |
| 17:04:30 | bauzas | but given you need an instance UUID, I don't get the problem | |
| 17:04:42 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: you can list delete instanes | |
| 17:04:46 | sean-k-mooney | to get the uuid | |
| 17:05:04 | bauzas | sure, and then you can get the instance actions of that deleted UUID | |
| 17:05:09 | bauzas | which is expected behaviour | |
| 17:05:13 | sean-k-mooney | but pslestang can you confrim when you delete an instance today are the isntance actions deleted from the db | |
| 17:05:20 | bauzas | in order to know why this disappeared | |
| 17:05:34 | gmann | yeah | |
| 17:05:40 | pslestang | the use case is to have the table uniformly soft-deleted because we use a custom tool to archive the data | |
| 17:06:12 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: i think pslestang is suggeting that is not what happens today | |
| 17:06:21 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: yes i think i have seen your tool | |
| 17:06:29 | sean-k-mooney | its now in the ops tools repo right | |
| 17:06:37 | bauzas | again, what's the current behaviour ? | |
| 17:06:40 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: it should be I guess | |
| 17:06:56 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: i tought ye upstreamed it recently into one of the opendev repos | |
| 17:07:06 | sean-k-mooney | i rembere a mail thread about it | |
| 17:07:09 | pslestang | the current behaviour is: on instance soft delete, instance actions are not soft deleted | |
| 17:07:44 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: the db rows in the instance action table are deleted? or just not marked as deleted | |
| 17:07:45 | pslestang | when running nova db-archive, all the data ar copied into shadow table | |
| 17:08:07 | bauzas | that | |
| 17:08:21 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: the db rows in the instance action table are not marked as deleted | |
| 17:08:26 | bauzas | OK, that's then expected behavioour and not a bug | |
| 17:08:41 | sean-k-mooney | ok and you just want them to be marked as deleted when the new config opiton is set | |
| 17:08:49 | bauzas | given the records aren't marked as soft-deleted, you can retrieve them thru the API | |
| 17:09:07 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah he wants the records to not be showable | |
| 17:09:12 | sean-k-mooney | yes you should be able too | |
| 17:09:19 | pslestang | and on nova db purge the data are remove from sahdow table and there is a if in the code for instance action to rely on updated_at instead of deleted_at | |
| 17:09:35 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: yes that's it | |
| 17:09:40 | bauzas | he prefers data consistency over API | |
| 17:10:02 | pslestang | bauzas: exact | |
| 17:10:10 | bauzas | well, 'he' being OVH, not pslestang I guess :) | |
| 17:10:21 | sean-k-mooney | well its not really a consitency issue | |
| 17:10:33 | sean-k-mooney | they are two differnece reseoucces | |
| 17:10:40 | sean-k-mooney | the instnace and the instnace actions | |
| 17:10:51 | bauzas | pslestang: do you understand that you won't be able to investigate an instance deletion thru the API if you mark the action records as soft-deleted ? | |
| 17:10:55 | sean-k-mooney | the sate of the instnace does not modify the sate of the actions | |
| 17:11:01 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: agreed | |
| 17:11:12 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: this is two different models but, | |
| 17:11:20 | bauzas | OVH wants their script to be simplier | |
| 17:11:24 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: the way around that would be to extend the api to allow a --delete | |
| 17:11:29 | sean-k-mooney | like we do for instnace list | |
| 17:11:34 | sean-k-mooney | in a new microverion | |
| 17:11:51 | pslestang | bauzas: yes we know but this is also the point you mention earlier to be able to retrieve instance action for a deleted instance | |
| 17:11:53 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: that's exactly why I said in the meeting that I'm opposed to this be a specless BP if we touch the API | |
| 17:12:15 | bauzas | the scope of this BP needs to be clarified | |
| 17:12:19 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: right so if we want to change the api it would need to be a spec | |
| 17:12:49 | gmann | yeah, I think it is good to add spec and then we can discuss all API or DB change needed | |
| 17:13:27 | pslestang | bauzas: ok, can we proceed in 2 steps? First one would be to add a config option to soft delete instance action if I understand well we could do it as a specless BP | |
| 17:13:29 | bauzas | actually I said I was OK with a specless BP for just the config flag, but,n | |
| 17:13:34 | sean-k-mooney | ok so i dont think we are against making this change at a high level but just want a spec to explain exactly what the behavior shoudl be | |
| 17:13:38 | bauzas | there are interop concerns | |
| 17:14:05 | bauzas | if one cloud stops reporting instance actions for a deleted instance and one reporting them | |
| 17:14:06 | sean-k-mooney | there are yes it woudl be config dirven api behaivor | |
| 17:14:08 | pslestang | the second will require a spec to add a --delete flag | |
| 17:14:34 | bauzas | we somehow need to make the API public that is a behavioural change, right? | |
| 17:14:37 | sean-k-mooney | i think we would have to either do this always when a server is delete with the new microverion or never | |
| 17:14:57 | bauzas | I'm not an API interop expert | |
| 17:15:10 | sean-k-mooney | so new microverion to make instnace action soft deleted and then allow you to list with --deleted | |
| 17:15:14 | bauzas | and I don't know how we treat config-driven API behaviours | |