| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-05-17 | |||
| 15:19:19 | gmann | gibi: sean-k-mooney I am not surprise on c9s job unstable. | |
| 15:19:21 | gibi | sean-k-mooney, kashyap, gmann: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/842140 | |
| 15:19:44 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: do you know why that was made voting? | |
| 15:20:00 | sean-k-mooney | i was not expecting to have a voting job yet | |
| 15:20:12 | gmann | gibi: sean-k-mooney but we should not make SSH-able by deafult in base class for all test but 842140 approach is good | |
| 15:20:36 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: because it was passing and we want to see how long it will :)as non voting goes unmonitored | |
| 15:21:01 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: right but for nova we had said we did want it to be voting intially at the ptg | |
| 15:21:08 | gmann | gibi: sean-k-mooney I think we can do those grep for detach and make them SSH-able. I tried to do in that series but might not have finished | |
| 15:21:14 | sean-k-mooney | so i was surpsed ot see it in the nova gate | |
| 15:21:33 | sean-k-mooney | sicne we had not got around to creating the nova-next centos job yet | |
| 15:21:50 | sean-k-mooney | but i guess the templats got updated? | |
| 15:21:58 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: you mean 'did not want it to be voting' if 'did want it to be voting' ? | |
| 15:22:28 | gibi | actually I'm fine that is voting, this way we are forced to fix these missing waiters | |
| 15:22:36 | sean-k-mooney | we intially did not want he centos job to be voting in nova. i was suggesting adding one based on nova-next | |
| 15:22:49 | kashyap | gibi: Oh, cool | |
| 15:22:50 | kashyap | wait_until in ("SSHABLE", "PINGABLE") and | |
| 15:22:51 | kashyap | CONF.validation.run_validation | |
| 15:23:00 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: well im ok with it but i was expecting use to let it bake for a while | |
| 15:23:28 | gmann | if detach things is only failing we ill keep identified the test waiting for SSH-able or can grep in advance. | |
| 15:23:39 | gmann | and if more other failure start then we can think of making it non voting/ | |
| 15:24:14 | gibi | gmann: ack | |
| 15:25:44 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: gibi actully i guess the issue is i missed this https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/ed3abea3b239044bf72277d548da5e2277aed8f5 | |
| 15:26:19 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: i did not think we had added centos based testing in or check/gate pipeline yet at all | |
| 15:26:45 | sean-k-mooney | so when i brought it up in the ptg i was epecting to let it bake for a few months | |
| 15:26:52 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: yeah, centos stream is first we are trying i think and c9s as voting | |
| 15:26:56 | sean-k-mooney | before making it voting | |
| 15:27:27 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: is this happing in other project too | |
| 15:27:51 | gmann | but I am not saying we have to it is like if they are stable we keep them voting and if unstable and no help from centos community then we can think of removing the distro testing frmo testing runtime. example opensuse | |
| 15:27:55 | sean-k-mooney | because we wanted to add it to nova to test very speicific things namely newer libvirt and q35 by defualt | |
| 15:28:26 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: happening failure or making it voitng? | |
| 15:28:30 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: the testing runtime dose not define what os we test on in the indivigual projects | |
| 15:29:00 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: we define minimum expectation of testing and those are needed to be stable as base distro or QA support | |
| 15:29:04 | sean-k-mooney | as in centos being listed in the testing runtime has never ment that nova or neutron tested with it | |
| 15:29:56 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: centos has been in the pti for years but it was only added to nova in yoga by gibis patch | |
| 15:30:02 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: it is not like that, it is meant as a minimum expectation from every project but as devstack itself and our CI/CD is mostly on ubuntu we are doing that only and centos etc are mostly tested in tripleo or so | |
| 15:30:26 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: right i am privding feed back that that is not how it has worked previously | |
| 15:30:30 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: not by gibi patch, it is made voting in tempest side I think lee adedd this c8s integrated job | |
| 15:30:43 | sean-k-mooney | so form my persepitve this is a change in expecation from teh QA team | |
| 15:31:06 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: I know, we are trying if c9s as base can be stable as that is must needed for FIPS testing also which a community wide goal now. | |
| 15:31:38 | sean-k-mooney | yep im aware of the fips intersect | |
| 15:31:56 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: if c9s is not stable we will make it clear 1. can centos community help in making it stable 2. if no then let's not spend time on this and drop the entire support like opensuse we did | |
| 15:32:10 | bauzas | I said it downstream but I saw something fun : https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/update-userdata Registered by Steve Baker on 2013-10-07 | |
| 15:32:16 | gmann | and having them voting is my main goal to know the data | |
| 15:32:37 | bauzas | on that date, I was just starting to work on Nova :) | |
| 15:32:43 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: right so when i brogt it up at the ptg for the last 3 ptgs or more | |
| 15:32:47 | bauzas | and my kid was 3yo :) | |
| 15:33:01 | sean-k-mooney | i started with not having it voting ot not blocke patche merging until it was table | |
| 15:33:16 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: i wanted to have it voting eventuly too | |
| 15:33:36 | sean-k-mooney | and mensiton using fips testing as one of the reasons to do this as well as teting newer libvirt | |
| 15:33:44 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: so i think we are aligned | |
| 15:34:00 | sean-k-mooney | just was not expecting it to be voting until m2 honestly | |
| 15:34:19 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: yeah, I think we are saying same thing. if that become unstable we will make it non voting even that is what QA plan is. but as long as it is passing (we will fix the detach things) it is ok to try | |
| 15:34:49 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: untill we fix the detach thing i think its unstable which is why | |
| 15:35:03 | sean-k-mooney | lee had a patch to change it to voting at the end of the sshable series | |
| 15:35:32 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/834546 | |
| 15:35:38 | sean-k-mooney | i guess is what made the change | |
| 15:36:03 | gmann | yeah that is what I did, fixed most flaky test and see | |
| 15:36:04 | sean-k-mooney | it was proably meged too soone but that fine | |
| 15:36:15 | gmann | but sure, let me make all detach tests SSH-able whatever remaining | |
| 15:38:19 | gmann | gibi: left 1 comment, rest lgtm https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/842140/1/tempest/api/compute/base.py#482 | |
| 15:38:48 | sean-k-mooney | hehe | |
| 15:38:55 | sean-k-mooney | we basically asked the same question | |
| 15:39:00 | sean-k-mooney | but i dont think we can hard code | |
| 15:39:03 | sean-k-mooney | to active | |
| 15:39:24 | sean-k-mooney | we can only set it to active if it was "sshaable" or "pingable" | |
| 15:39:32 | sean-k-mooney | if the instance was stopped when you resize it | |
| 15:39:40 | sean-k-mooney | it wont go to active after its resized | |
| 15:40:02 | gibi | it was hardcoded to ACTIVE before the change | |
| 15:40:13 | gibi | so I think we can hardcode it now too :) | |
| 15:40:16 | sean-k-mooney | i guess we dont resize stoped guests? | |
| 15:40:23 | gibi | I guess so | |
| 15:40:38 | sean-k-mooney | ok then they can update that when the add a test for that | |
| 15:40:47 | sean-k-mooney | so ok hardcode it | |
| 15:40:51 | gibi | cool | |
| 15:40:53 | gibi | I will respin | |
| 15:40:56 | gmann | if run validation is disabled then hard coded is ok | |
| 15:41:05 | gmann | and we know detach will be the issue that time | |
| 15:46:53 | gmann | these carry forwards comments from previous PS are becoming more iterating now. I am sure 3rd person reviewing this first time will be confused on it if they are fixed or not - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/842140/2/tempest/api/compute/base.py | |
| 15:47:08 | gmann | *irritating :) | |
| 15:47:21 | gmann | may be just for me | |
| 15:47:44 | sean-k-mooney | ya they are | |
| 15:47:59 | sean-k-mooney | i have started activly cleaning them up when i do reviews now | |
| 15:48:37 | sean-k-mooney | so i take a pass over a review comparing the old patch to new and and mark them as done if they are | |
| 15:48:47 | sean-k-mooney | then i do a reivew after the patch is "clean" | |
| 15:49:02 | sean-k-mooney | its a pain | |
| 15:52:28 | gmann | yeah | |
| 16:02:02 | bauzas | #startmeeting nova | |
| 16:02:02 | opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue May 17 16:02:02 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is bauzas. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | |
| 16:02:02 | opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | |
| 16:02:02 | opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'nova' | |
| 16:02:10 | bauzas | sorry, was late | |
| 16:02:11 | gibi | o/ | |
| 16:02:14 | dansmith | o/ | |
| 16:02:16 | elodilles | o/ | |
| 16:02:25 | Uggla | o/ | |
| 16:02:33 | bauzas | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova#Agenda_for_next_meeting | |
| 16:03:12 | bauzas | and the heat wave here makes me melting | |
| 16:03:25 | bauzas | let's start then | |
| 16:03:31 | bauzas | #topic Bugs (stuck/critical) | |
| 16:03:36 | bauzas | #info No Critical bug | |