| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-06-24 | |||
| 16:31:18 | elodilles | #info stable branches (stable/2025.1 and stable/2024.*) seem to be in OK state | |
| 16:31:25 | elodilles | #info stable branch status / gate failures tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-branch-ci | |
| 16:31:36 | elodilles | that's all, back to you Uggla | |
| 16:31:41 | Uggla | thx elodilles | |
| 16:32:27 | Uggla | Skipping next topic because fwiesel is not available | |
| 16:32:33 | Uggla | #topic Gibi's news about eventlet removal. | |
| 16:32:38 | Uggla | #link Blog: https://gibizer.github.io/categories/eventlet/ | |
| 16:32:47 | Uggla | #link nova-scheduler series is ready for core review, starting at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947966 | |
| 16:32:57 | Uggla | gibi, something you want to share. | |
| 16:33:05 | gibi | hm | |
| 16:33:06 | gibi | sorry | |
| 16:33:13 | gibi | thanks for the feedback on the series | |
| 16:33:28 | gibi | I spent time on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953121 | |
| 16:33:39 | gibi | that was triggered by the discusson on the spawn_on patch | |
| 16:33:56 | gibi | I have local changes to apply some of those to the eventlet series itself | |
| 16:34:11 | gibi | but downstream priorities stole my time | |
| 16:34:17 | bauzas | gibi: I saw the -W, can I start to review it tho ? | |
| 16:34:30 | bauzas | (I mean the spawn_on patch) | |
| 16:34:35 | gibi | bauzas: you can it is not broken. There is a missing piece that I will add | |
| 16:34:41 | gibi | all noted in the review comments | |
| 16:35:01 | gibi | to be precise I will add a missing test piece | |
| 16:35:06 | gibi | not production code piece | |
| 16:35:14 | bauzas | ack | |
| 16:35:36 | gibi | and | |
| 16:35:48 | gibi | there is the governance discussion about when to drop eventlet | |
| 16:36:00 | gibi | honestly I'm a bit lost how to move that forward | |
| 16:36:23 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/952903/1/goals/selected/remove-eventlet.rst | |
| 16:36:42 | gibi | I hope the tc has plans to reconcile the discussion there ;) | |
| 16:36:47 | gibi | that is it form me | |
| 16:36:57 | Uggla | thx gibi | |
| 16:37:06 | Uggla | #topic Open discussion | |
| 16:37:12 | Uggla | We have 2 topics | |
| 16:37:22 | Uggla | #topic (andreykurilin) Expansion of "servers:detail:get_all_tenants" policy to other server read-only APIs (example: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952896) | |
| 16:37:32 | Uggla | andreykurilin, please go ahead | |
| 16:37:44 | andreykurilin | Hi folks! | |
| 16:38:06 | andreykurilin | I, as an operator, have a need to provide readonly access to compute resources for third-party teams | |
| 16:38:24 | andreykurilin | While list api works fine, get api provides much better UX | |
| 16:38:52 | andreykurilin | What do you think about extending current readonly apis to reuse existing policy? | |
| 16:39:23 | andreykurilin | Does it need new api micro version ? Spec? Blueprint? | |
| 16:40:40 | sean-k-mooney | one of the latter two but policy change generally dont need micro verions | |
| 16:41:57 | sean-k-mooney | we do have a spec, two in fact for the intorduction fo the manager role and service role to nova | |
| 16:42:13 | sean-k-mooney | if i recall form the mailing list dicussion you only wanted to expose 1 endpoint correct | |
| 16:42:22 | sean-k-mooney | if it was many then i would say it needs a spec | |
| 16:42:49 | andreykurilin | Yes, I need get server api exposed. Maybe server actions in future, but not at this moment | |
| 16:43:42 | Uggla | It seems gmann is not opposed to the change, which is a good sign. | |
| 16:44:26 | andreykurilin | I’m happy to commit some resources to cover more than is needed for my company, if you want, but not sure that I have enough resources to work on a big spec | |
| 16:45:00 | Uggla | I think the question is if we are ok to fix it as bug | |
| 16:46:32 | Uggla | sean-k-mooney any thought about that ? | |
| 16:47:42 | sean-k-mooney | i dont consider it a bug in teh backport sense. we could treat it as an RFE bug i.e. a bug with the rfe tag instead of a specless bluepirnt | |
| 16:48:23 | sean-k-mooney | i would suggest that if we want to do somethign this clcye we keep it small and targeted | |
| 16:48:45 | sean-k-mooney | and we can dicuss larger changes but in the context of next cycle | |
| 16:49:03 | sean-k-mooney | just being practical we hae several large api serises in flight | |
| 16:49:32 | sean-k-mooney | openapi scemea, service role and manger role | |
| 16:50:00 | sean-k-mooney | we may be ableo to review a targed patch but if you want to do many endpoint we will need more time to discss it then we have before m2 | |
| 16:50:08 | Uggla | Tbh, I would rather have a specless BP. Easier to track on my side. | |
| 16:50:23 | andreykurilin | I’m ok to have only one endpoint “fixed” this cycle | |
| 16:50:45 | andreykurilin | Creating a specless BP works for me | |
| 16:50:54 | Uggla | So andreykurilin, if you can open a specless BP so I could track it. | |
| 16:50:55 | sean-k-mooney | then i woudl suggest filing a specless blueprint for server show | |
| 16:51:13 | Uggla | 👍 | |
| 16:51:19 | sean-k-mooney | and then asking for it to be approved on the mailing list or next meeting | |
| 16:51:25 | sean-k-mooney | to give gmaan or other type to respond | |
| 16:51:37 | andreykurilin | Ok, got it. Thank you | |
| 16:51:40 | sean-k-mooney | s/type/time/ | |
| 16:52:03 | gmaan | I am ok for the spec-less BP and agree that it does not need microversion | |
| 16:52:17 | sean-k-mooney | im ok with that direction too | |
| 16:52:27 | sean-k-mooney | just for the metting ^ | |
| 16:52:54 | gmaan | I tried to search history why we did not do for SHOW server when doing for details and could not find any reason | |
| 16:53:04 | gmaan | it was just not needed by anyone till now | |
| 16:53:52 | andreykurilin | It was “workaroundable”. We lived with list + id filter for several years already and finally I found time to ask you guys about this | |
| 16:54:07 | gmaan | ++, thanks for bringing that | |
| 16:54:14 | Uggla | andreykurilin++ | |
| 16:55:20 | Uggla | moving on to next topic. | |
| 16:55:25 | Uggla | #topic (ratailor) spec and implementation for show-instance-action-finish-time (https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp/show-instance-action-finish-time%22) | |
| 16:55:40 | Uggla | ratailor please go ahead. | |
| 16:56:08 | ratailor | As the implementation is also completed, just a request to provide feedback on spec so that it gets merged before FF. | |
| 16:56:17 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for server IPs APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937608 | |
| 16:57:48 | ratailor | That's all from my side re this. | |
| 16:58:30 | sean-k-mooney | ratailor: do you have tempest coverage showing that this works ? | |
| 16:59:04 | sean-k-mooney | specificly it would be nice to see the test that orginally demponstrated this did not work passing | |
| 16:59:23 | ratailor | sean-k-mooney, don't have tempest tests yet, but I can try to submit chagne for that. | |
| 16:59:40 | ratailor | sean-k-mooney, yes, sure. I will try with that one. | |
| 16:59:40 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/905130 | |
| 17:00:04 | sean-k-mooney | it woudl be nice to update that and have it depend on your seriese to show ti workign end to end | |
| 17:00:31 | ratailor | sean-k-mooney, sure. Thansk! | |
| 17:00:37 | Uggla | sean-k-mooney, I agree it might also help on an escalation we have internaly | |
| 17:03:11 | Uggla | We have 2 more topics, but we are also at the top of the hour. So gibi, jonnyb if you don't mind we would be able to discuss next week. Except if it's urgent. | |
| 17:03:26 | jonnyb | hi, fine for me | |
| 17:03:36 | Uggla | jonnyb, thx for your understanding | |
| 17:03:44 | Uggla | gibi ? | |
| 17:04:14 | sean-k-mooney | jonnyb: you wanted to add a tiny weigher right? | |
| 17:04:25 | jonnyb | yeah right | |
| 17:04:50 | sean-k-mooney | if you have the patch it woudl be good for other to at least condier it before the next meeting | |
| 17:04:59 | sean-k-mooney | or perhaps start a mailing list thread on the topic | |
| 17:05:16 | sean-k-mooney | tl;dr is it weighs host by how old they are | |
| 17:05:23 | sean-k-mooney | and prefers the newer ones | |
| 17:05:43 | jonnyb | its a pretty simple patch | |
| 17:05:48 | sean-k-mooney | which is similer but differnt to the hyperviors_version weigher and they both complement each other | |
| 17:06:24 | sean-k-mooney | im generally ok with this as a specless blueprint by the way but we can disscuss that outside teh meeting or next week | |
| 17:07:02 | gibi | Uggla: no worries my topic was touched during the eventlet block | |