| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-03-24 | |||
| 17:22:03 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: what's the justification for backport upstream? it's been broken forever, not sure it ever worked, not a regression in recent memory and thus seems entirely a feature to me | |
| 17:22:52 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: just that it was tracked as a bug upstream as it worked in theory with old libvirt | |
| 17:23:02 | sean-k-mooney | but i agree that its not a very strong justification | |
| 17:23:23 | sean-k-mooney | that why im relucatnt to propose ti without impot form the stable team | |
| 17:23:35 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. elodilles or others | |
| 17:24:18 | dansmith | okay I thought you were implying it had a good justification.. to me it's just a feature.. if it ever worked it was long enough ago that it's not really a regression, | |
| 17:24:36 | dansmith | so even if it's fixing a bug that never worked, it's enabling a whole new workflow, behaviors, etc.. very feature-y to me | |
| 17:25:11 | sean-k-mooney | yep. canconcal can assesss if they want to fix it in there downstream indepenetely of if we think its upstream fixable too | |
| 17:25:14 | simondodsley | would it elp if a customer raised a bug report against this? | |
| 17:25:19 | sean-k-mooney | so simondodsley i would still reach out to them about it | |
| 17:25:32 | sean-k-mooney | simondodsley: not really we have downstream custoemr bugs relate to it too | |
| 17:25:51 | sean-k-mooney | although it never workined in our downstream that we can tell for any supproted release | |
| 17:26:24 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. its been broekn for many many years | |
| 17:26:32 | simondodsley | i get it | |
| 17:26:58 | sean-k-mooney | we are also debtatign if we can backprot this internally but we have not done that yet | |
| 17:27:39 | sean-k-mooney | our latest downstream product is based on antelope and it does tno have the otehr fature which is the harder oen to backprot safely | |
| 17:28:00 | dansmith | no, a customer bug report would not change my mind :) | |
| 17:28:33 | sean-k-mooney | for what its worth we totelly condier this to be a feature downstream | |
| 17:29:03 | sean-k-mooney | and honestly an incompelte one since you cant use it with attach | |
| 17:30:10 | sean-k-mooney | modifying the nova api to allow setting the device type to lun on attach will need a new microverison and someone to actully do the work :) | |
| 17:31:56 | sean-k-mooney | do be clear that woudl be nice ot have for other reason as it would allwo you to create a volume form an iso and attach it as a cd_rom | |
| 17:32:16 | sean-k-mooney | but i dont think anyone is curently working on that | |
| 18:29:31 | masahito | Hi nova folks, please review the API bug fix https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939658 All the comments are resolved and i hope bug fix reviews for the next release is open now. | |
| 23:31:42 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: i shoudl avlid checkign if things have merged before i go to bed :) ill fix the typos quickly `_SentinelExcpetion` was intentionally not `SentinelExcpetion` | |
| 23:32:47 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: yes you should. that is usually a recipe for staying up even later in my experience :P | |
| 23:33:02 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: also, I meant typo of the word Exception, not the underscore | |
| 23:33:23 | sean-k-mooney | oh i tried to compare the spelling but i didnt see that | |
| 23:33:33 | sean-k-mooney | ill copy pat your version and add the underscore | |
| 23:33:41 | melwitt | you are very consistent with your typos, I will give you that | |
| 23:34:23 | sean-k-mooney | with in the scope of a function/module | |
| 23:34:51 | sean-k-mooney | if a copiler/interperter shouts at me ill definetly fix it | |
| 23:35:01 | sean-k-mooney | but between files much less so | |
| 23:37:23 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: wrap wsgi_app.init_application with latch_error_on_raise https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945028 | |
| 23:37:50 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: hopefully id didnt add any new typos but ^ shoudl fix everythign you noted | |
| 23:38:22 | sean-k-mooney | ah i reverst the ep to pe | |
| 23:38:51 | sean-k-mooney | *reversed | |
| 23:38:56 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: looks good to me, thanks | |
| 23:42:01 | sean-k-mooney | by the way is there any reason to hold https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943507 | |
| 23:42:45 | sean-k-mooney | we are past rc1 and master is not 2025.2 so we can merge that on master but we cant backport until we ship 2025.1 right | |
| 23:43:31 | sean-k-mooney | well backporting is kind if awkware because the config otpion depend on specirfic oslo limits versions | |
| 23:43:56 | sean-k-mooney | but we are past the rc period now so there is no reason not to +w that right? | |
| 23:44:27 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: yeah, the backport is not straightforward :( so not sure what we will do there, maybe nothing | |
| 23:44:58 | sean-k-mooney | ya thats less the awsome but it what it is | |
| 23:45:15 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: not that I know of but we could double check with bauzas/uggla | |
| 23:45:44 | sean-k-mooney | i could but i just +w'd i could remove it | |
| 23:45:56 | sean-k-mooney | but i think we are good | |
| 23:46:04 | melwitt | yeah it should be ok | |
| 23:47:23 | sean-k-mooney | i thikn there are 1 or 2 other chanage in a similar state but im not going to go look for them tonight | |
| 23:47:31 | sean-k-mooney | chat to you tomrrow o/ | |
| 23:47:46 | melwitt | seeya tomorrow o/ | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-03-25 | |||
| 01:33:38 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: unified limits: discover service ID and region ID https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943507 | |
| 01:33:44 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2024.1: Reproducer for bug 2098892 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942653 | |
| 01:33:51 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2024.1: libvirt: Fix regression of listDevices() return type https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942654 | |
| 04:35:22 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: wrap wsgi_app.init_application with latch_error_on_raise https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945028 | |
| 08:38:34 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: I added a section to the PTG etherpad for the SPICE VDI next steps. I am not entirely sure it needs a big discussion, but your thoughts would be welcome. | |
| 10:02:40 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: wrap wsgi_app.init_application with latch_error_on_raise https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945439 | |
| 10:04:19 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.2: wrap wsgi_app.init_application with latch_error_on_raise https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945440 | |
| 10:05:56 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/2024.1: wrap wsgi_app.init_application with latch_error_on_raise https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945441 | |
| 10:06:47 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/2023.2: wrap wsgi_app.init_application with latch_error_on_raise https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945442 | |
| 10:26:22 | sean-k-mooney | mikal:ack, i think the vdi enhancments are reasonable, you could files a specless blueprint for it now and added it to todays irc meeting we can see if we can get it approved so you can pick up where you left off | |
| 13:04:50 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: regarding yesterday's ping about backportability of the 3 patches till caracal ( https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/918089/3 ): to me it looked OK to backport, but reading dansmith's opinion - he has more insight in this, so - it's completely on nova team decision whether an exception to backport this should be granted or not o:) (based on the discussion, backporting to | |
| 13:04:56 | elodilles | prior version than Caracal is not possible in my opinion). | |
| 13:09:30 | ratailor | elodilles, sean-k-mooney, gibi could you please review these, one more +2 is required https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/933107 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873901 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938054 ? | |
| 13:14:06 | elodilles | ratailor: i don't have +2 right on master branch o:) | |
| 13:15:08 | ratailor | elodilles, ack. no problem. you can provide your suggestion, if you want to. Thanks! :) | |
| 13:15:36 | elodilles | :) | |
| 13:25:49 | sean-k-mooney | ratailor: sure, i need to context switch to somethign else shortly but +2w on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/933107, im already +2 on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/938054 so that needs someone else. ill quickly review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873901 | |
| 13:26:16 | ratailor | sean-k-mooney, sure. Thanks! | |
| 13:27:37 | sean-k-mooney | my commnets on test coverage are still open on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873901 but no one has rasied a concern in 3 months so im sort of inlcined to say we can add more later if needed | |
| 13:29:48 | sean-k-mooney | ratailor: what ill do is the following. ill elevate form +1 to +2w but it would be nice if you could submit a followup after this merges for the happy path test i called out and other nits. | |
| 13:30:15 | ratailor | sean-k-mooney, sure. I will do. | |
| 13:34:49 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP Remove unnecessary PCI check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944105 | |
| 13:34:50 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP improve comment accuracy and variable naming for tag removal https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/943124 | |
| 13:34:50 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP Add a warning to make non-explicit live migration request debugging easier https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944133 | |
| 13:34:51 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP Update pci-passthrough and virtual-gpu documentation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944153 | |
| 13:34:51 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP: Improve libvirt fixture for hostdevs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945232 | |
| 13:34:52 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: FUP improve and add integration tests for PCI SR-IOV servers https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944106 | |
| 13:38:34 | elodilles | btw, if any nova core is ready for a 10 sec review (of a bot generated patch): https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944890 | |
| 13:39:05 | bauzas | elodilles: done | |
| 13:48:05 | elodilles | thanks \o/ | |
| 14:04:43 | dansmith | ...there must be some sort of magic to get failing gabbit tests to actually show me logs... | |
| 14:07:18 | gibi | dansmith: does OS_DEBUG=1 helps? | |
| 14:07:27 | dansmith | it does not | |
| 14:07:29 | gibi | :/ | |
| 14:07:52 | gibi | it was too long ago when last time I debugged gabbit to remember | |
| 14:08:01 | dansmith | yeah, I've been tearing through infrastructure trying to hack it to give me logs or see why it's swallowing it, | |
| 14:08:18 | dansmith | but it's just very focused on the gabbit result | |
| 14:08:37 | dansmith | glance functional tests are sort of similar.. really really hard to get the backend logs when there's a failure | |
| 14:08:39 | dansmith | super annoying | |
| 14:14:39 | gibi | I agree | |
| 14:16:48 | sean-k-mooney | i was going to suggest the same OS_DEBUG=1 i confirmed it is allowed in the tox config so its not that either | |
| 14:18:08 | sean-k-mooney | its usign the normal log fixtures but it also has 2 addtional ones for error and warning | |
| 14:18:10 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/placement/blob/master/placement/tests/functional/base.py#L54-L58 | |
| 14:18:22 | sean-k-mooney | so i think its those last two that are the problem | |
| 14:18:31 | dansmith | yeah, I'm about to just repro the gabbit that is failing in python so I can effing see the problem | |
| 14:18:49 | sean-k-mooney | i woudl ty comemntign out lines 57 and 58 | |
| 14:18:57 | sean-k-mooney | and see fi it woks with os_debug then | |
| 14:19:41 | dansmith | already tried :) | |
| 14:20:46 | sean-k-mooney | well you can do the tried and true Raise RuntimeError instead of logging | |
| 14:22:27 | dansmith | I have no idea where it's failing | |