| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-04-25 | |||
| 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 :) | |
| 13:35:01 | frickler | I approved the revert, but I'd be interested in learning why this wasn't detected by the tempest job we are running on reqs, does it only affect ovs? maybe we should have a second tempest job in reqs, then? | |
| 14:56:20 | gibi | frickler: thanks. As far as I see it is only a problem if the interface detach times out due to slow node and retried by nova, the os-vif unplug is retried while I guess in pyroute2 something is still running for the first try. So probably the original tempest run does not hit it as it did not need to re-try the detach | |
| 18:15:19 | sean-k-mooney | i have not looked but there is a small chance that once we remvoe the linux bridge plugin we can entrily remove pyroute2 from os-vif | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-04-28 | |||
| 01:06:42 | opendevreview | DongHun, Kim proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for memory allocation mode='immediate' in Nova https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948303 | |
| 01:25:25 | opendevreview | DongHun, Kim proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for memory allocation mode='immediate' in Nova https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948303 | |
| 01:42:44 | opendevreview | DongHun, Kim proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for memory allocation mode='immediate' in Nova https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948303 | |
| 01:56:42 | opendevreview | DongHun, Kim proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for memory allocation mode='immediate' in Nova https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948303 | |
| 02:47:31 | opendevreview | Masanori Kuroha proposed openstack/nova master: Copy applied provider.yaml https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948304 | |
| 03:05:08 | opendevreview | Masanori Kuroha proposed openstack/nova master: Copy applied provider.yaml https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948304 | |
| 04:28:05 | opendevreview | DongHun, Kim proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for memory allocation mode='immediate' in Nova https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948303 | |
| 05:00:22 | opendevreview | DongHun, Kim proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for memory allocation mode='immediate' in Nova https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948303 | |
| 05:41:12 | opendevreview | DongHun, Kim proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for memory allocation mode='immediate' in Nova https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/948303 | |