| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-04-25 | |||
| 12:37:54 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Remove nova debugger functionality https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/922496 | |
| 12:37:55 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: split monkey_patching form import https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/922425 | |
| 12:37:55 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Remove superfluous monkey patching form func test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947237 | |
| 12:38:05 | gibi | it was a trivial rebase due to removed files | |
| 12:49:49 | sean-k-mooney | oh right because we delete the api entry point | |
| 12:50:10 | sean-k-mooney | im just goign to fast approve that with a comment | |
| 12:59:29 | gibi | thanks! | |
| 13:45:28 | dansmith | gibi: it seems like you have multiple stacks of eventlet patches that are not all in a single queue? | |
| 13:45:40 | dansmith | I got to the top of the one I was looking at before and they're all +2+W | |
| 13:45:57 | gibi | dansmith: correct. I try to keep independent patches in independent series | |
| 13:45:57 | dansmith | this stack has a WIP in the second spot: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948064/2 | |
| 13:46:17 | dansmith | is that the best one to start on next, or is there another stack of more ready ones? | |
| 13:47:24 | gibi | yep that series is WIP at the scatter-gather change. Still worth a conceptual review if you have time. The other two simple series got approved today | |
| 13:47:52 | gibi | this was the eventlet based WSGI removal https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948064/2 | |
| 13:48:21 | gibi | and this was the small removals https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947237/3 | |
| 13:48:38 | gibi | kamil has https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947212 but that also got approved | |
| 13:48:53 | gibi | so at the moment I can only offer the one with the WIP in the second slot | |
| 13:49:08 | gibi | and that is only for conceptiula / directional reviews | |
| 13:49:32 | gibi | I want to rush locally with that series up until I can run nova-scheduler with threading in a devstack (which is not far) | |
| 13:50:08 | dansmith | okay | |
| 13:50:15 | gibi | s/I can run/I can try to start/ | |
| 14:20:31 | opendevreview | Thomas Rotsaert proposed openstack/nova master: feat(hypervisors) - Adding new hypervisor property `hypervisor_rack`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948216 | |
| 14:21:00 | opendevreview | Thomas Rotsaert proposed openstack/nova master: feat(hypervisors) - Adding new hypervisor property `hypervisor_rack`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948216 | |
| 14:22:23 | dansmith | gibi: I'm surprised to see this with no test change: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948064/2/nova/quota.py | |
| 14:22:42 | dansmith | is this already covered and the existing tests still fully working? | |
| 14:25:19 | sean-k-mooney | the existing test are workign https://storage.gra.cloud.ovh.net/v1/AUTH_dcaab5e32b234d56b626f72581e3644c/zuul_opendev_logs_b14/openstack/b14cdd4f87e54daeb81f9f053bf9bdb2/cover/z_8ee3d46129bdc436_quota_py.html is the coverage report | |
| 14:26:57 | sean-k-mooney | i guess that imples that there is a potital gap in unit test coverage | |
| 14:27:06 | dansmith | there's a lot not covered there | |
| 14:27:07 | sean-k-mooney | the coverate repot does nto account for fucntional test | |
| 14:27:11 | dansmith | right | |
| 14:27:14 | dansmith | which is why I'm asking :) | |
| 14:27:33 | dansmith | I would assume people who have +2d it also checked that :) | |
| 14:29:02 | gibi | dansmith: I assumed that the existing test covered it well enough that that it proves the from the outside it produce the same resoult regardless of the internals | |
| 14:29:04 | sean-k-mooney | i spend most of my review time trying to conveice my slef that the refactor did the same thing (albeit in a more efficnet way) and was mostly happy with the passing tempest/tox test that it was workign as expected | |
| 14:29:43 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: right that was my tought process as well however at the unit test level there i sa gap | |
| 14:29:49 | dansmith | that's a little scary, guys | |
| 14:31:36 | sean-k-mooney | i mean it had no unit test coverage before either https://storage.gra.cloud.ovh.net/v1/AUTH_dcaab5e32b234d56b626f72581e3644c/zuul_opendev_logs_4e4/openstack/4e4c4e1313844ef5bdb09e666d4119fd/cover/z_8ee3d46129bdc436_quota_py.html#t1210 | |
| 14:32:01 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: fine, but that's a good reason to _add_ it before we break something that has apparently been working in production | |
| 14:32:03 | sean-k-mooney | so the actul coverage went up 2% | |
| 14:32:25 | sean-k-mooney | i dont disagree with that sentiemtn | |
| 14:32:32 | dansmith | and if we had no coverage on anything, that's not a good reason to just make untested changes because there's nobody watching | |
| 14:32:44 | sean-k-mooney | woudl you like me to pull it form the queue or defer to a follow up i nthe series | |
| 14:32:53 | dansmith | I just broke the new thing and am running functional so we'll see, hopefully something will notice | |
| 14:33:06 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: is it in the actual gate? | |
| 14:33:41 | sean-k-mooney | the gate jobs are running | |
| 14:33:43 | gibi | I'm OK to pull it and I can try to add extra coverage. | |
| 14:34:05 | sean-k-mooney | ok ill drop +w | |
| 14:34:31 | dansmith | a bunch of the quota functional tests have run and it didn't fail.. long ways to go still, but... | |
| 14:37:01 | dansmith | {6} nova.tests.functional.db.test_quota.QuotaTestCase.test_server_group_members_count_by_user_2_False [0.224107s] ... FAILED | |
| 14:39:25 | dansmith | so that one is at least running the code, which is good, but I don't see that it has any build requests to check that part | |
| 14:46:33 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: as an asside do you know if there is a reason we dont include the funtioal test in the coverage report today? i would guess its runtime but i never really tought about it | |
| 14:46:53 | dansmith | yeah I wish we had it too, | |
| 14:46:59 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: im not sure if that woudl be a good or bad thing | |
| 14:47:24 | dansmith | I'm guessing because it's a separate job, but we could just make the regular functional be the coverage one, if not for the inherited job thing :/ | |
| 14:47:26 | dansmith | I'd like to have it | |
| 14:47:27 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: well i think we could do it. it might be something i hack on the next time i fell like hacking on those kidn of thing | |
| 14:47:42 | dansmith | I run a lot of coverage reports locally when I suspect someone hasn't actually added a test | |
| 14:48:03 | sean-k-mooney | well tis just calling our tox target so that josb can run anything we want if we update it. | |
| 14:48:51 | sean-k-mooney | what i was mroe wondering is woudl we want a combined coverage reprot (form both testsuites) or seperate unit/functional reports | |
| 14:49:22 | sean-k-mooney | job wise i think combined is nice but ya i just said i woudl ask | |
| 14:49:24 | dansmith | we could, maybe that would be better | |
| 14:50:06 | dansmith | gibi: okay, one test runs that code and doesn't have (AFAICT) any build requests | |
| 14:50:39 | dansmith | gibi: if you wouldn't mind at least mentioning in the commit message that we don't need additional testing, that would be appreciated, | |
| 14:50:55 | dansmith | but adding BR coverage to that existing test seems prudent to me as well, since you're changing that code | |
| 14:51:18 | gibi | dansmith: I will add the missing coverage. No problemo | |
| 14:51:22 | gibi | :) | |
| 14:53:01 | dansmith | gibi: thanks | |
| 15:10:28 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: FUP improve and add integration tests for PCI SR-IOV servers https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/944106 | |
| 16:11:20 | opendevreview | Thomas Rotsaert proposed openstack/nova master: feat(hypervisors) - Adding new hypervisor property `hypervisor_rack`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948248 | |
| 16:11:58 | opendevreview | Thomas Rotsaert proposed openstack/nova master: feat(hypervisors) - Adding new hypervisor property `hypervisor_rack`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948248 | |
| 16:18:19 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: FUP Remove unnecessary PCI check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/946625 | |
| 16:23:16 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: FUP Remove unnecessary PCI check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948251 | |
| 16:26:13 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: FUP Remove unnecessary PCI check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/946623 | |
| 16:39:13 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: FUP Update pci-passthrough and virtual-gpu documentation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948253 | |
| 16:40:29 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: FUP Update pci-passthrough and virtual-gpu documentation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948254 | |
| 16:41:00 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova stable/2025.1: FUP Update pci-passthrough and virtual-gpu documentation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948254 | |
| 17:41:50 | opendevreview | Thomas Rotsaert proposed openstack/nova master: feat(hypervisors) - Adding new hypervisor property `hypervisor_rack`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948258 | |
| 17:43:41 | opendevreview | Thomas Rotsaert proposed openstack/nova master: feat(hypervisors) - Adding new hypervisor property `hypervisor_rack`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948258 | |
| 19:21:35 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Remove nova debugger functionality https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/922496 | |
| 19:21:47 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: split monkey_patching form import https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/922425 | |
| 19:21:58 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Remove superfluous monkey patching form func test https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947237 | |
| 19:41:41 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Remove workaround for ovn live migration https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/946950 | |
| 21:16:12 | opendevreview | Thomas Rotsaert proposed openstack/nova master: feat(hypervisors) - Adding new hypervisor property `hypervisor_rack`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948276 | |
| 21:16:48 | opendevreview | Thomas Rotsaert proposed openstack/nova master: feat(hypervisors) - Adding new hypervisor property `hypervisor_rack`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948276 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-04-26 | |||
| 11:19:18 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: fyi the latest pyroute2 bump broke os-vif so I proposed a revert https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/948283 | |
| 11:19:55 | sean-k-mooney[m] | didnt rodolfo fix that | |
| 11:20:20 | sean-k-mooney[m] | although we have not done a release since | |
| 11:21:18 | sean-k-mooney[m] | @gibi https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/946977 | |
| 11:21:47 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: that is just unit test adaptation | |
| 11:21:55 | gibi | what I see is interface detach broken in tempest | |
| 11:21:58 | sean-k-mooney[m] | gibi: oh its using asyncio | |
| 11:22:18 | gibi | yeah | |
| 11:22:25 | gibi | we need to remain on 0.8.1 I guess | |
| 11:22:30 | sean-k-mooney[m] | we do do that in tempset | |
| 11:22:47 | sean-k-mooney[m] | but i guess the bump was not done at the time | |
| 11:23:27 | sean-k-mooney[m] | we could try changing the executor for eventlet to asyncio but i think that also does not work properly yet | |
| 11:23:40 | sean-k-mooney[m] | ok well i think a revert for now makes sense | |
| 11:23:54 | sean-k-mooney[m] | and then we need to look deeper | |
| 11:24:22 | gibi | yeah | |
| 11:25:56 | gibi | anyhow I only stopped by for rechecks. I'm moving on :) | |