| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-01-12 | |||
| 12:27:08 | huanxuan | http://logs.openstack.org/85/418685/3/check/gate-python-openstackclient-python35/fe25c5f/console.html#_2017-01-12_06_18_50_571756 | |
| 12:27:40 | huanxuan | stevemar: about auth_ref | |
| 12:28:28 | stevemar | huanxuan: yeah, i noticed that a few times now | |
| 12:29:41 | openstackgerrit | Huanxuan Ao proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: Fix gate broken by auth_ref in image unit test https://review.openstack.org/419445 | |
| 12:31:00 | huanxuan | stevemar: I try to specify a value for auth_ref, just like we did in other unit test, hopefully it works | |
| 12:31:00 | openstackgerrit | Xinhui Li proposed openstack/python-openstacksdk: Add workflow service (mistral) https://review.openstack.org/414919 | |
| 12:43:03 | dtroyer | OK, I am trying to understand what makes that test race like that… | |
| 12:43:10 | dtroyer | ooooooooohhhhhhhhhh... | |
| 12:43:22 | dtroyer | many class variables in that file | |
| 12:45:18 | dtroyer | are all of the failures in the same place? | |
| 12:47:23 | huanxuan | dtroyer: no, I saw two in network qos rule command, and one in image set command | |
| 12:50:19 | huanxuan | they are variable... | |
| 12:52:52 | stevemar | huanxuan: dtroyer at least unit test failures are more isolated than functional test failures :) | |
| 13:00:26 | RuiChen | we have an IRC meeting UTC 13:00 today? | |
| 13:00:44 | dtroyer | YES! thanks for the nudge… | |
| 13:01:11 | dtroyer | #openstack-meeting-3 now | |
| 13:01:22 | RuiChen | \o/, I join it right now | |
| 13:17:52 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/os-client-config: Use upper-constraints for tox envs https://review.openstack.org/419273 | |
| 13:17:54 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/os-client-config: Remove 3.4 from tox envlist https://review.openstack.org/419457 | |
| 13:23:40 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: Fix Network QoS rule CLI attrs parsing https://review.openstack.org/419461 | |
| 14:00:24 | stevemar | o/ | |
| 14:00:30 | huanxuan | stevemar: let's talk about the manage and unmanage | |
| 14:00:30 | RuiChen | hi | |
| 14:01:15 | stevemar | huanxuan: sure, looks like thingee (mike perez) had some comments in v | |
| 14:01:16 | stevemar | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/410008/ | |
| 14:01:18 | RuiChen | but some new commands which is added in newton can't use against Mitaka OpenStack, I mean, dtroyer | |
| 14:02:45 | huanxuan | stevemar: actually I don't know how to make sure the comment "do this automatically" | |
| 14:03:17 | huanxuan | stevemar: I don't know how to see the difference in this kind of volume between using --remote and not | |
| 14:04:02 | huanxuan | since there is not a volume create using --remote for me | |
| 14:04:24 | huanxuan | I cannot see any information about it | |
| 14:05:01 | stevemar | huanxuan: that's fine, i was hoping there was information about in the volume, but i guess not | |
| 14:05:15 | stevemar | huanxuan: i'm just concerned about mike's last comments | |
| 14:05:38 | stevemar | he really doesn't like the --remote option, sounds like he would have liked manage/unmanage commands | |
| 14:06:18 | dtroyer | I really don't like manage/unmanage, but don't understant the choice of —remote either | |
| 14:06:20 | huanxuan | stevemar: yes | |
| 14:06:42 | dtroyer | is 'set —manage | —unmanage' a thing here? | |
| 14:06:42 | stevemar | dtroyer: did we release those commands yet? | |
| 14:07:04 | dtroyer | stevemar: no idea…probably, this goes back to before the previous release or two | |
| 14:07:47 | dtroyer | if we make a change in direction, deprecating —remote is no big deal | |
| 14:08:17 | huanxuan | yes, we can make a change if necessary | |
| 14:08:21 | stevemar | grr, went into 3.6.0 and 3.5.0 | |
| 14:08:28 | dtroyer | my concern with manage/unamanage is that it is fairly meaningless without already knowing exactly what cinder defines it to mean, not something that can ge used elsewhere sicne no other API that I know of has this concenpt | |
| 14:08:31 | stevemar | thats true | |
| 14:08:51 | huanxuan | yeah | |
| 14:09:00 | dtroyer | those really are db-only operations | |
| 14:09:18 | dtroyer | if I wanted to be a jerk, I'd say they belong in cinder-manage :) | |
| 14:09:18 | RuiChen | sorry, I think make OSC version match openstack version make sense for downstream team, it's easier to pick right osc version for stable openstack , so what's your advise? dtroyer | |
| 14:09:50 | dtroyer | RuiChen: I'd like to finish the cinder thing first… | |
| 14:09:59 | stevemar | we can always deprecate the option or add a new manage command (the two options for creating can co-exist) | |
| 14:10:13 | stevemar | dtroyer: i think we're done | |
| 14:10:28 | RuiChen | sure, here you go, sorry | |
| 14:10:29 | dtroyer | right. this is a case where I do think we need to step back a bit and make sure we build the right UI | |
| 14:10:39 | dtroyer | ok, thanks guys | |
| 14:11:03 | huanxuan | RuiChen: thanks | |
| 14:11:10 | dtroyer | RuiChen: the current OSC will always have features that an older cloud can not use, but that does not make it unusable on older clouds | |
| 14:11:53 | stevemar | if someone comes up with a nice UI, they can build it. the two options can co-exist. just like git checkout -b new_branch; and git branch -d <new_branch> | |
| 14:11:55 | dtroyer | if that idea is a problem for your downstream, then it will always be a problem during every release | |
| 14:12:12 | huanxuan | stevemar: sounds good | |
| 14:13:02 | huanxuan | stevemar: so we are going to add manange and unmanage commands now, right? | |
| 14:13:12 | stevemar | huanxuan: not now, whenever :P | |
| 14:13:19 | dtroyer | the cases where matching stable OSC to a cloud release are usually due to distributions that can not co-install multiple python bits from different releases due to dependency conflicts | |
| 14:13:58 | huanxuan | stevemar: OK, get it! :) | |
| 14:14:53 | dtroyer | RuiChen: so what specifically is blocking your use of the current OSc releases? | |
| 14:16:52 | RuiChen | our user confused about why some osc commands raise error in stable openstack, they don't know openstack too much | |
| 14:17:21 | RuiChen | i means latest osc run against old version openstack cloud | |
| 14:18:11 | dtroyer | are those due to differences in the API or due to deployment choices? | |
| 14:18:15 | RuiChen | and the dependency conflicts is other reason too | |
| 14:19:24 | RuiChen | for example, that SSL bug, we deploy all openstack services in SSL | |
| 14:19:42 | dtroyer | and I agree that is one that probably should be backported | |
| 14:20:27 | dtroyer | can you prepare that one for a backport? | |
| 14:20:42 | RuiChen | thank you, I will | |
| 14:21:12 | RuiChen | I saw the backport patch is abandoned, so ask these | |
| 14:22:19 | dtroyer | fortunately, stable releases will not be stuck in our upcoming freeze so there is not a time pressure from our side for that | |
| 14:23:19 | RuiChen | \o/, I will prepare the patch | |
| 14:23:55 | RuiChen | just make sure, will we release a stable osc version for it? | |
| 14:24:21 | dtroyer | yes | |
| 14:24:48 | RuiChen | thank you :) | |
| 14:32:29 | stevemar | RuiChen: thanks for your help with osc :) | |
| 14:33:05 | dtroyer | huanxuan: that image test is still racy, failed py35 but passed py27 | |
| 14:33:33 | huanxuan | dtroyer: yes, I saw it | |
| 14:33:49 | dtroyer | I'm having a hard time reproducing it locally, can you? | |
| 14:34:20 | huanxuan | dtroyer: I am working on it | |
| 14:35:07 | dtroyer | I am wondering if we need to reset the mock inside the for loop | |
| 14:35:27 | dtroyer | well, reset is at the bottom, I mean re-initialize it | |
| 14:37:22 | huanxuan | dtroyer: re-initialize? | |
| 14:38:00 | dtroyer | move lines 855-857 below 859 | |
| 14:40:13 | huanxuan | dtroyer: Oh! get your point! | |
| 14:43:13 | dtroyer | stevemar, huanxuan: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/419461/ looks ready to go | |
| 14:43:50 | openstackgerrit | Huanxuan Ao proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: Fix gate broken by auth_ref in image unit test https://review.openstack.org/419445 | |
| 14:44:12 | huanxuan | dtroyer: +A | |
| 15:06:03 | openstackgerrit | Huanxuan Ao proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: Fix gate broken by auth_ref in image unit test https://review.openstack.org/419445 | |
| 15:08:20 | stevemar | dtroyer: i dont understand the if statements in the tests | |
| 15:08:28 | reedip | ralonsoh : hehe, gate did it :D | |
| 15:11:35 | dtroyer | stevemar: Where? are you talking about test_image_set_membership_option()? | |
| 15:11:52 | stevemar | dtroyer: commented | |
| 15:11:55 | stevemar | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/419461/1 | |
| 15:14:00 | openstackgerrit | Steve Martinelli proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: Fix gate broken by auth_ref in image unit test https://review.openstack.org/419445 | |
| 15:14:34 | dtroyer | ok… ugh, more parallel testing side effects maybe? | |
| 15:14:37 | stevemar | dtroyer: rebased https://review.openstack.org/#/c/419445/4 on top of the qos fix | |
| 15:15:03 | stevemar | dtroyer: yeah, i was wondering if we're just opening ourselves up to more racey tests | |