| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-05-11 | |||
| 16:59:14 | dansmith | melwitt: okay gibi just commented on the bug that we've seen an. uptick recently | |
| 16:59:37 | melwitt | yeah, I just saw that too | |
| 17:12:49 | dansmith | fungi: there's something that has completed all our jobs in gate that we need to recheck, but it's just sitting there in the queue and I'm not sure why | |
| 17:13:24 | dansmith | it's already identified as failed and out of the queue, but not.. uh, reporting or whatever | |
| 17:13:25 | clarkb | dansmith: because the changes ahead of it haven't finished | |
| 17:13:37 | clarkb | only the first thing in the queue can report | |
| 17:13:48 | clarkb | doing so removes it from the queue and then the next item can be processed | |
| 17:13:54 | dansmith | I thought if nothing in front could have caused the failure on that job it would come out immediately | |
| 17:14:04 | clarkb | zuul doesn't have that information so can't do that | |
| 17:14:14 | dansmith | hmm, okay | |
| 17:14:25 | clarkb | by putting things in the same queue you are asserting a failure in one may be caused by the other | |
| 17:14:31 | clarkb | and zuul is operating on that knowledge | |
| 17:14:37 | dansmith | okay | |
| 17:15:03 | dansmith | but it already shows it as failed out (meaning the fork in the line) so I thought that was it saying it knows the things behind it no longer depend | |
| 17:15:41 | clarkb | correct the things behind it no longer depend on it. But the things ahead of it may be where the actual bug is | |
| 17:16:02 | clarkb | in that case you want to evict the broken stuff ahead and restart the things ehind | |
| 17:16:18 | dansmith | so the green checks behind this are based on skipping it or with it applied? | |
| 17:16:38 | clarkb | the green checks behind are based on skipping the one that has failed | |
| 17:16:41 | dansmith | I assume with it applied and they'll restart if it decides it was legit to kick it out? | |
| 17:16:47 | dansmith | hmm okay | |
| 17:16:50 | clarkb | the unknown is the not yet completed jobs ahead of it | |
| 17:16:55 | dansmith | so if it doesn't get kicked out they restart? | |
| 17:16:57 | fungi | but they'll all be tested again from scratch if something else ahead of all of those fails a job | |
| 17:17:49 | clarkb | you have 5 changes, 6th is a failure, then X behind. Zuul does not know if the failure was caused by the 5 changes at the front so it does not completely evict the 6th until it processes the 5 ahead of it | |
| 17:17:50 | fungi | until all changes ahead of the failing change merge successfully, zuul can't be sure that there's something wrong with that change | |
| 17:18:18 | dansmith | it's too bad we can't mark a job as isolated or something, because this is only running nova unit tests, but it's held up as if it has the same dependencies as something with a tempest (which is why the queue needs to be shared) | |
| 17:18:28 | dansmith | obviously not a very common case | |
| 17:19:12 | dansmith | fungi: ack, the fork in the graph makes it look to me like it's already "out" but yeah okay | |
| 17:19:36 | dansmith | "out of consideration" I should say | |
| 17:20:37 | dansmith | but yeah I guess I thought there was job affinity and not just place-in-the-queue | |
| 17:24:31 | fungi | right, if the failure were due to a change ahead of it in an oslo lib, the bug in that oslo change might fail on some other job which exposed the same bug through some other tests which aren't the nova unit test job | |
| 17:24:39 | fungi | it's all fairly abstract from zuul's perspective | |
| 17:25:41 | dansmith | yeah, probably safer that way I guess, it's just not how I thought it worked | |
| 17:29:59 | sean-k-mooney | JayF: i think we have just been a bit busy and missed it | |
| 17:30:49 | sean-k-mooney | JayF: one of the things we agree at the ptg however as not to auto reappove previosly approves specs if there was no code proposed in the previos cycle | |
| 17:31:19 | sean-k-mooney | JayF: i know you were working on the iroinc side fo that last cyle | |
| 17:31:25 | JayF | sean-k-mooney: that's an interesting case; there was lots of code landed last cycle related to that spec. None in nova though (we had to get the Ironic API released, which we have) | |
| 17:31:30 | sean-k-mooney | JayF: how is that going | |
| 17:31:38 | JayF | Ironic shards API exists, was shipped in Antelope | |
| 17:31:47 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 17:31:49 | JayF | openstacksdk support for it is landed, unsure if released but it can be if eneded | |
| 17:32:00 | JayF | I'm working on Ironic CLI support for that, which is only really needed once the Nova stuff is released | |
| 17:32:12 | JayF | right now, if that spec doesn't hit a speed bump, we've hit every milestone on time | |
| 17:32:21 | sean-k-mooney | cool | |
| 17:32:33 | sean-k-mooney | are you planning to work on the nova part this cycle | |
| 17:32:51 | sean-k-mooney | assuimg its the same as the spec form last cycle | |
| 17:33:01 | sean-k-mooney | i dont really see any issues with it | |
| 17:33:11 | sean-k-mooney | as long as there is someone to work on it we can review | |
| 17:33:18 | JayF | I believe John Garbutt is going to be doing most of the heavy lifting, with Julia and I as backup / docs writing | |
| 17:33:52 | sean-k-mooney | ok have they confirmed that since john has been out of active nova dev for a while | |
| 17:34:08 | JayF | I have confirmed that downstream | |
| 17:34:27 | JayF | He helped us with the design, and wrote the spec last cycle which was approved. | |
| 17:35:06 | JayF | Either way, regardless of which human writes the code, it's our intent to implement the spec as listed. I sure hope John does it; his familiarity will save a lot of time but even if not, this is too important to let it live/die on one persons' shoulders. | |
| 17:35:32 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 17:36:25 | sean-k-mooney | ill try an review it proably monday at this point but if they want to +2 it i can proably +w it assuming its basically the same as last cycle. | |
| 17:36:40 | sean-k-mooney | i was happy with the desgin previously | |
| 17:37:02 | sean-k-mooney | and i dont think anythin has maritarly change on the nova side that woudl affect it | |
| 17:37:07 | JayF | I appreciate it. My only urgency in getting the spec merged is I believe there's a deadline in the nova process for things we want to land this cycle, yeah? | |
| 17:37:29 | sean-k-mooney | there technially is but its milestone too | |
| 17:37:35 | sean-k-mooney | *two | |
| 17:37:56 | sean-k-mooney | so July 6th | |
| 17:37:59 | JayF | aha, I was worried it was -1 | |
| 17:38:11 | JayF | sounds good :) thanks Sean! | |
| 17:38:22 | sean-k-mooney | no we encurage peopel to submit the first draft before m1 | |
| 17:38:27 | sean-k-mooney | you have time | |
| 17:38:46 | JayF | I'm going to use some of that time now to land the ironic cli for shards o/ ty again | |
| 17:41:38 | sean-k-mooney | since i have it open im going to do a quick pass on it and compre to last release but then i need to swap to somethign else. | |
| 17:42:02 | sean-k-mooney | JayF: the ironic cli is now a osc plugin yes | |
| 17:42:13 | sean-k-mooney | or does ironic still have a standalone cli too | |
| 17:42:56 | JayF | sean-k-mooney: yes-ish. We have a plugin for OSC which can also operate independently (e.g. with just Ironic client plugin installed, you can still run `baremetal whatever`) | |
| 17:43:17 | JayF | but if the primary openstack cli client is installed, `openstack baremetal whatever` works | |
| 17:43:37 | sean-k-mooney | oh neat | |
| 17:43:44 | JayF | single codebase, same command structure, just prefix for when it's integrated vs no prefix when it's not | |
| 17:44:04 | JayF | that's also why all the Ironic docs use `baremetal X` instead of `openstack baremetal X` (the non-openstack-namespaced version works universally) | |
| 17:44:17 | sean-k-mooney | well without i assume the "prefix" is the binary name | |
| 17:45:13 | sean-k-mooney | so ironic baremetal X ? vs openstack baremental X | |
| 17:45:22 | JayF | Gonna be honest; I've done very little work in the clients. Part of why I'm speaking inexactly is my knowledge is inexact. | |
| 17:45:34 | JayF | No, it's `openstack baremetal X` or `baremetal X` (no Ironic at any point) | |
| 17:45:34 | sean-k-mooney | no worries | |
| 17:46:03 | sean-k-mooney | ok so then teh console script entryp oint and the binary on the path is called "baremental" then | |
| 17:46:53 | JayF | https://github.com/openstack/python-ironicclient/blob/master/setup.cfg#L25 we have both a binary and the entrypoints setup | |
| 17:46:53 | sean-k-mooney | thhat woudl be yes https://github.com/openstack/python-ironicclient/blob/master/setup.cfg#L27 | |
| 17:46:57 | JayF | heh jinx | |
| 17:47:08 | fungi | dansmith: melwitt: (or anybody else plugged into ossa-2023-003), do you happen to know if the vulnerability affects iscsi based deployments that don't rely on multipathd? i asked just now in https://launchpad.net/bugs/2004555 because an operator reached out to me directly with the question | |
| 17:47:20 | dansmith | fungi: I just replied and pinged gorka | |
| 17:47:28 | fungi | oh, perfect. thanks! | |
| 17:47:34 | sean-k-mooney | JayF: no worreis just had not seen that done before but that was what i was expecting | |
| 20:25:39 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: CI: fix backport validator for new branch naming https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882956 | |
| 20:25:47 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2023.1: CI: fix backport validator for new branch naming https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882964 | |
| 20:26:28 | dansmith | woot | |
| 22:40:34 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/yoga: Remove deleted projects from flavor access list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/881314 | |
| 22:40:41 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/zed: Ironic: retry when node not available https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/867924 | |
| 22:40:48 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/zed: CI: fix backport validator for new branch naming https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882965 | |
| 23:34:28 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: doc: Update version info https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880614 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2023-05-12 | |||
| 06:32:58 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Delete dangling bdms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882284 | |
| 07:14:17 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Reproducer for dangling volumes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/881457 | |
| 07:14:17 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Delete dangling bdms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882284 | |
| 08:29:57 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/yoga: CI: fix backport validator for new branch naming https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/882966 | |
| 08:32:38 | opendevreview | Danylo Vodopianov proposed openstack/nova master: Packed virtqueue support was added. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/876075 | |
| 09:48:56 | opendevreview | Alexey Stupnikov proposed openstack/nova stable/xena: Remove deleted projects from flavor access list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/883014 | |