| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-03-24 | |||
| 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 | |
| 14:22:33 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/placement/blob/master/placement/tests/functional/fixtures/capture.py#L40-L62 | |
| 14:22:35 | dansmith | it's a 500, which should be logging lots | |
| 14:24:38 | sean-k-mooney | oh gabbit also has its own fixtures with its own logging config. it does include that however | |
| 14:24:47 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/placement/blob/master/placement/tests/functional/fixtures/gabbits.py#L62 | |
| 14:24:57 | dansmith | there are multiple layers of log interception in placement, and also in gabbi yeah | |
| 14:25:16 | dansmith | I'm wondering if gabbi has changed in some way and left placement stuck | |
| 14:25:39 | dansmith | to be clear, I've tried to mangle that capture module and I'm not sure it's ever even getting hit | |
| 14:25:46 | dansmith | I can define error, warning, etc on there and raise and nothing changes | |
| 14:26:01 | dansmith | not sure if that's because it ends up with another nameless 500 or what | |
| 14:27:30 | sean-k-mooney | well if you are looging and its intercepted it should show up in one fo those fixtures | |
| 14:27:48 | dansmith | to be clear, I'm not logging | |
| 14:28:00 | dansmith | there's a gabbit test that now fails with 500 after a change I made | |
| 14:28:08 | dansmith | and I'm trying to figure out what the 500 is | |
| 14:28:15 | sean-k-mooney | oh you want ot see that ok | |
| 14:28:23 | dansmith | but I agree, it should be going through that fixture | |
| 14:28:58 | sean-k-mooney | so it has to be realted to this block https://github.com/openstack/placement/blob/master/placement/tests/functional/fixtures/gabbits.py#L62-L71 | |
| 14:30:09 | dansmith | I mean, you'd think, but there are similar fixtures also in functional/base | |
| 14:30:17 | dansmith | and in gabbi itself | |
| 14:31:04 | sean-k-mooney | oh you think that the fact we are inheriting form the gabbit testcase might be altering the behavior | |
| 14:31:16 | sean-k-mooney | looking at git blame https://github.com/openstack/placement/commit/fcd1e538d9b7d315cb3f74c83f1a9e4ddcab180e | |
| 14:31:41 | sean-k-mooney | it same like there was a lot of log output in the past and they added thsi handelign ot silance some of that | |
| 14:31:58 | dansmith | I removed all those fixture setups in gabbits.py and no change | |
| 14:32:25 | dansmith | right, I'm sure it's the attempt to make it pretty, but it has made it completely un-debuggable, AFAICT | |
| 14:32:28 | sean-k-mooney | i proably shoudl be doing somethign else bug you peaked my interest | |
| 14:32:44 | sean-k-mooney | do you have a patch i can pully or aplly and see if i can replicate it | |
| 14:33:18 | dansmith | I can push it up | |