| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-02-24 | |||
| 14:59:55 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I can publish the code today the funct testing will take more time | |
| 15:00:16 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney, gibi: ack | |
| 15:00:30 | gibi | I'm OK moving forward with dmitriis fix that is up and refactor it later | |
| 15:00:43 | sean-k-mooney | ack that is what i was going to ask | |
| 15:01:04 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/829974 is addin more call to the pci utils but that can be refactored later | |
| 15:01:25 | sean-k-mooney | and i think having move operation work is proably more imporant then purity in this case | |
| 15:01:49 | sean-k-mooney | given we should be able to backport the refactor after FF i think | |
| 15:02:47 | sean-k-mooney | dmitriis: ill try and review that fully later today | |
| 15:03:09 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney: ack, ty | |
| 15:15:20 | gibi | ack I will review too | |
| 15:55:45 | sean-k-mooney | dmitriis: +1 on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/829974 comments inline | |
| 15:56:11 | gibi | dmitriis: I also left comments inline https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/829974 just now | |
| 15:58:56 | melwitt | gibi: answered. I also see the series is in merge conflict so I have to rebase it 😩 | |
| 15:59:14 | sean-k-mooney | chateaulav: looking at the realtime status of https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/822053/64 in zuul the tox jobs are going to fail | |
| 16:00:03 | chateaulav | tracking, taking a look now | |
| 16:00:10 | dmitriis | sean-k-mooney, gibi: looking | |
| 16:00:14 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: do we need to start stacking series and or wait for unified limists to merge before mergeing others | |
| 16:00:24 | gibi | melwitt: thanks for the answer I missed the fact that it ius differnt coverage. Then I think it make sense to keep both coverage in place | |
| 16:01:40 | bauzas | melwitt: don't be afraid, we can merge your series tomorrow if needed | |
| 16:01:58 | bauzas | melwitt: I mean, if gibi says +2 of course | |
| 16:02:00 | gibi | melwitt: ping me after the rebase and I can put back the +A on the series | |
| 16:02:04 | bauzas | me too | |
| 16:02:14 | gibi | bauzas: I'm +2 on the series | |
| 16:02:16 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: dunno actually, I hadn't checked conflict with other things that need to go now | |
| 16:02:21 | bauzas | gibi: cool then | |
| 16:03:03 | bauzas | gmann: wdyt if we merge a few changes from this tenant-id series ? | |
| 16:03:15 | melwitt | bauzas, gibi: that sounds great, thank you! | |
| 16:04:45 | gibi | bauzas: is the tenant-id series an all-or-nothing situation as the microversion is in the first patch? | |
| 16:04:47 | gmann | bauzas: humm that will be like need two microversion for single type of change. | |
| 16:04:55 | gmann | gibi: indeed | |
| 16:05:09 | gmann | we cannot split the single microversion changes in two series | |
| 16:05:15 | gmann | two cycle | |
| 16:05:31 | gmann | and it change the many APIs | |
| 16:15:13 | chateaulav | any insight for resolution on a couple of the issues | |
| 16:15:20 | chateaulav | https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/sdXpnsVs/ | |
| 16:15:55 | gibi | chateaulav: where do you see that error? on the gate? | |
| 16:16:00 | chateaulav | i know yuval was doing the lightos stuff, just not sure how that gets triggered on my rebase | |
| 16:16:14 | chateaulav | the driver patch check after rebase | |
| 16:16:17 | yuval | whats the issue? | |
| 16:16:19 | gibi | but locally | |
| 16:16:23 | gibi | I assume | |
| 16:16:28 | gibi | so I think you have to rebuild your tox env | |
| 16:16:32 | gibi | tox -r -e <env> | |
| 16:16:40 | gibi | you have an old os-brick in your env | |
| 16:16:47 | chateaulav | yeah, running that now to make sure, takes a min | |
| 16:17:48 | chateaulav | ok yeah, i see. ill focus on the 3 i see in zuul and then we should be good. | |
| 16:17:54 | sean-k-mooney | im just on a dowstream call ill try and take a look after | |
| 16:18:00 | chateaulav | for a sec I was like WTF im supposed to do with that | |
| 16:18:20 | gibi | yeah, you tox is not always smart enought to detect that deps are changed | |
| 16:18:32 | gibi | s/you// | |
| 16:18:33 | chateaulav | fact | |
| 16:18:52 | gibi | and now we are in a busy period integrating stuff on master | |
| 16:18:57 | bauzas | gmann: gibi: sorry was in meeting (and still are :) ) | |
| 16:19:11 | gibi | bauzas: ack | |
| 16:19:14 | gibi | no worries | |
| 16:19:25 | bauzas | gmann: gibi: I was asking for it as I knew it would mean two microversions for the same project_id change | |
| 16:19:37 | yuval | gibi thanks for the fast response, chateaulav sorry about that | |
| 16:19:58 | chateaulav | your good. just a sec of panic on my side | |
| 16:19:59 | bauzas | gmann: gibi: but I was wondering about merging a few things for Yoga as we don't have any new microversions and just telling within the microversion what APIs were touched | |
| 16:20:15 | bauzas | gmann: gibi: but if you guys prefer to merge it at once, fine by me | |
| 16:20:25 | gibi | bauzas: we can technically split to two microversions it is a bit of a meh UX but yeah | |
| 16:20:41 | bauzas | this is just unrealistic to merge the whole branch before today EOB | |
| 16:20:46 | gibi | ack | |
| 16:21:11 | bauzas | my only concern is that brinzhang isn't around as we speak | |
| 16:21:20 | gibi | it is pretty late for him | |
| 16:21:30 | bauzas | so we can't really ask him to change the microversion change for saying which APIs are modified | |
| 16:21:41 | bauzas | this would mean some kind of exception | |
| 16:21:48 | bauzas | so maybe not a priority | |
| 16:21:58 | bauzas | as you can see, I'm not opinionated | |
| 16:21:59 | gmann | yeah, I also prefer to merge it together | |
| 16:22:25 | bauzas | OK, if there is no huge interesting in merging by pieces, let's then punt | |
| 16:22:42 | gmann | as it is cleanup, I think we can move it to next cycle and make it priority in Zed since starting.? | |
| 16:22:43 | gibi | my only fear that we never merge it ever and brinzhang gets mad and drops it | |
| 16:23:06 | gmann | gibi: yeah, it has been going in many cycle. | |
| 16:23:23 | gibi | yeah we somehow need tof force ourselve to look at that series early in the cycle | |
| 16:23:32 | gibi | but we failed on it this time | |
| 16:23:38 | gibi | or at least I failed | |
| 16:24:00 | gmann | I too failed, but I will commit on this for Zed for sure. | |
| 16:24:29 | gmann | there are few last patches not ready at least server tenant usage url one | |
| 16:24:45 | gmann | which brin asked me to look and I did not get chance | |
| 16:26:23 | melwitt | apologies for the upcoming spam | |
| 16:26:41 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Move keypair quota error message into exception https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/828186 | |
| 16:26:42 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add stub unified limits driver https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/712137 | |
| 16:26:42 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Assert quota related API behavior when noop https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/712140 | |
| 16:26:43 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Make unified limits APIs return reserved of 0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/712141 | |
| 16:26:43 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add logic to enforce local api and db limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/712139 | |
| 16:26:44 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Enforce api and db limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/712142 | |
| 16:26:44 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Update quota_class APIs for db and api limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/712143 | |
| 16:26:45 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Update limit APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/712707 | |
| 16:26:46 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Update quota sets APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/712749 | |
| 16:26:46 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Tell oslo.limit how to count nova resources https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/713301 | |
| 16:26:48 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Enforce resource limits using oslo.limit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/615180 | |
| 16:26:48 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add legacy limits and usage to placement unified limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/713498 | |
| 16:26:50 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Update quota apis with keystone limits and usage https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/713499 | |
| 16:26:50 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add reno for unified limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/715271 | |
| 16:26:52 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Enable unified limits in the nova-next job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/789963 | |
| 16:28:20 | melwitt | gibi, bauzas: merge conflict was super easy, was due to requirements bump so only requirements.txt and test-requirements.txt | |
| 16:28:36 | bauzas | ++ | |
| 16:29:08 | gibi | OK, On it | |
| 16:32:21 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Modify remaining APIs as per RBAC new guidelines https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/828994 | |