| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-01-12 | |||
| 17:24:52 | Serlex | briancurtin: thanks, complete noob, hoping example will set me off | |
| 17:25:01 | elmiko | edleafe: cool | |
| 17:25:12 | stevemar | Serlex: briancurtin sounds like it's this API? http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/networking/v2/?expanded=add-interface-to-router-detail#add-interface-to-router | |
| 17:25:28 | briancurtin | Serlex: looking at https://github.com/openstack/python-openstacksdk/blob/master/openstack/tests/unit/network/v2/test_router.py#L177 you would just pass kwargs that correspond with what’s expected by the server. they pass network_id=3, enable_snat=True there | |
| 17:25:36 | dtroyer | stevemar: my hacky-test for the image bits passed unit tests: https://review.openstack.org/419528 want to go with that (unrolled 1 test into 3) or shall I fix up huanxuan's? I know what bit we both missed the first time thought, just not why it is inconsistent | |
| 17:25:59 | stevemar | briancurtin: Serlex sounds like you need to pass one of subnet_id or port_id as kwargs | |
| 17:26:18 | briancurtin | Serlex: it might be similar but it’s not the same. the method you asked about isn’t listed there in the API docs | |
| 17:26:24 | cdent | edleafe, elmiko: proof please: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-wg-newsletter | |
| 17:26:34 | briancurtin | it’s an interface-to-router not gateway-to-router | |
| 17:27:39 | Serlex | ok thanks | |
| 17:27:43 | Serlex | this what I was looking at http://developer.openstack.org/sdks/python/openstacksdk/users/proxies/network.html | |
| 17:27:52 | elmiko | cdent: +1 from me | |
| 17:29:51 | edleafe | cdent: looks good, except I'm not sure how moral my support can be :) | |
| 17:30:29 | cdent | how's that edleafe ? | |
| 17:31:08 | edleafe | heehee | |
| 17:31:23 | edleafe | I think the earlier version would be clearer to the masses | |
| 17:31:45 | elmiko | lol | |
| 17:34:05 | cdent | damn | |
| 17:34:18 | cdent | hoisted on my typos, again and again | |
| 17:37:41 | ankur-gupta-f1 | dtroyer: stevemar: link for todays meetings agenda etherpad? | |
| 17:41:13 | dtroyer | ankur-gupta-f1: the etherpad is at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osc-weekly-meeting, but the meeting was a few hours ago…it an even week | |
| 17:41:32 | ankur-gupta-f1 | well shit. k thanks | |
| 18:46:29 | mordred | stevemar: oh good golly no - I mean working through a plan for dealing with the duplication of concerns between osc and occ that we're all happy with | |
| 18:53:23 | mordred | cdent, johnthetubaguy sorry I missed the second half of the api meeting - had to run to the airport | |
| 18:53:59 | cdent | as ya do | |
| 18:54:38 | mordred | cdent: in answer to your question, the sorts of things that would be useful from an occ/shade perspective as discoverable capabilities are the "Does this cloud support volume deletion" sorts of things | |
| 18:55:04 | cdent | what about "does this volume right here support deletion"? | |
| 18:55:37 | mordred | that's maybe useful, but less urgent than the first thing | |
| 18:56:25 | mordred | a better direct example is things like "this cloud requires floating ips for external access" | |
| 18:56:45 | cdent | that sounds more like a warning than capabilities discovery | |
| 18:56:55 | mordred | or "this cloud requires v2 tasks for image uploads" - or "this cloud requires images to be in VHD format" | |
| 18:57:16 | mordred | cdent: maybe I should phrase that differently... | |
| 18:57:56 | stevemar | dtroyer: let go with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/419528/3 instead, ship it! | |
| 18:58:06 | mordred | "this cloud supports floating ips" "this cloud supports direct attached public ips" "this cloud supports ipv6" "this cloud supports uploading image via PUT" - all of which are deployment choices | |
| 18:58:08 | cdent | I think your phrasing is pretty important because it represents one of the differences in the ways people are describing capabilities | |
| 18:58:10 | stevemar | dtroyer: huanxuan is fast asleep :) | |
| 18:58:23 | dtroyer | stevemar: shipped | |
| 18:58:29 | stevemar | dtroyer: woo hoo | |
| 18:59:28 | mordred | cdent: let me compile you a list of the things we either do a lot of work to figure out / infer or have to punt to config files | |
| 18:59:48 | dtroyer | stevemar: so my inability to successfully get a neutron devstack running again has borked my attempt to validate https://review.openstack.org/418650 with sdk 0.9.12. it sez devstack installed it, but the functional log sez 0.9.10 | |
| 19:00:06 | cdent | mordred: if you wanna do it right on the review that would be awesome: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/386555/ | |
| 19:00:13 | stevemar | dtroyer: hehe | |
| 19:00:22 | mordred | cdent: will do! | |
| 19:00:23 | dtroyer | fwiw, amazon will deliver my solution to the devstack VM problem Saturday… | |
| 19:00:28 | stevemar | dtroyer: let the CI do it | |
| 19:00:29 | cdent | mordred: awesome thanks | |
| 19:00:42 | stevemar | dtroyer: new laptop or workstation? | |
| 19:00:44 | dtroyer | cdent: what mordred sez +++ | |
| 19:00:45 | mordred | dtroyer: does AWS provide devstack as a service now? | |
| 19:00:55 | stevemar | mordred: i was going to go there lol | |
| 19:00:57 | dtroyer | mordred: via NUC, yes | |
| 19:01:04 | dtroyer | on-premises | |
| 19:01:13 | mordred | dtroyer: mmm. devstack-nuc on-prem | |
| 19:01:13 | dtroyer | unfortunately, it isn't going to run OpenStack | |
| 19:01:27 | dtroyer | I'm going to go back to Ganeti for lightweight VM management | |
| 19:01:46 | dtroyer | it just always works | |
| 19:02:32 | dtroyer | so if I could ask nodepool for a VM to use ad-hoc... | |
| 19:02:39 | dtroyer | Nodepool-as-a-service? | |
| 19:02:53 | dtroyer | but of course, running in my account | |
| 19:03:21 | cdent | that would be rather handy | |
| 19:08:42 | stevemar | dtroyer: that would be nice indeed | |
| 19:15:17 | mordred | dtroyer: that will be easy with nodepool v3 | |
| 19:16:59 | openstackgerrit | Steve Martinelli proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: unskip network qos rule type functional test https://review.openstack.org/419129 | |
| 19:17:36 | openstackgerrit | Steve Martinelli proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: Run functional tests with SDK 0.9.12 https://review.openstack.org/418650 | |
| 19:18:05 | stevemar | dtroyer: i scaffolded the patches ^ | |
| 19:19:35 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient: Fix flavor create help re swap size units https://review.openstack.org/419549 | |
| 19:20:55 | stevemar | dtroyer: do we need https://review.openstack.org/#/c/419067/ too? | |
| 19:32:26 | stevemar | dtroyer: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/376056/ would have been nice to include too | |
| 19:32:51 | stevemar | but needs tests | |
| 19:54:46 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient: Fix image member unit tests occasional failures https://review.openstack.org/419528 | |
| 19:56:00 | sshank_ | dtroyer, stevemar Will functional tests at gates be done with SDK 0.9.11 anytime soon? | |
| 20:06:27 | mordred | stevemar: ^^ do we have an osc gate job that does master of sdk (preferrably one we could have sdk also gate on?) | |
| 20:08:38 | openstackgerrit | Justin A Wilson proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: Add Versioned Method Support To Openstack Client https://review.openstack.org/419633 | |
| 20:44:29 | dtroyer | whelp, I managed to make lunch last waaaay to long and into the Gerrit maintenance | |
| 20:44:47 | dtroyer | or maybe missed it altogether? | |
| 20:48:49 | dtroyer | mordred: stevemar added just such a job in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/419047/ that appears to need some attention | |
| 20:53:30 | openstackgerrit | Anindita Das proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: OSC Network Flavor https://review.openstack.org/382530 | |
| 20:54:24 | stevemar | mordred: dtroyer aye, i just added the patch yesterday | |
| 20:54:34 | dtroyer | it has a typo, I'm fixing... | |
| 20:55:07 | stevemar | dtroyer: *shakes fist* | |
| 20:59:56 | stevemar | dtroyer: s/devm/dsvm :) | |
| 21:00:21 | dtroyer | yup… | |
| 21:03:25 | stevemar | dtroyer: fixed :) | |
| 21:08:17 | dtroyer | stevemar: look in the console log of http://logs.openstack.org/50/418650/5/check/gate-osc-dsvm-functional-ubuntu-xenial/849d8e6/, it shows openstacksdk 0.9.10 installed even though you have removed the blacklist and DevStac installed 0.9.12 for it's use. | |
| 21:09:05 | dtroyer | this is what I was trying to check out this morning…why didn't it (tox?) pick up the right version? does it pull requirements from not-the-repo when it builds the venv? | |
| 21:10:28 | stevemar | dtroyer: i was looking at http://logs.openstack.org/50/418650/5/check/gate-osc-dsvm-functional-ubuntu-xenial/849d8e6/logs/pip2-freeze.txt.gz | |
| 21:10:56 | stevemar | dtroyer: hmm, but yours ran just before the functional test, dammit | |
| 21:10:57 | dtroyer | that's from the devstack run I think | |
| 21:11:33 | dtroyer | the code-under-test is in the functional venv, not the devstack install | |
| 21:12:05 | stevemar | right | |
| 21:12:11 | dtroyer | I think we'll need the recently mentioned and fixed master job to really test this before we remove the blacklist | |
| 21:12:16 | stevemar | we can do a quick "pip install --upgrade" in the tox file? | |
| 21:12:27 | stevemar | or that | |
| 21:12:31 | dtroyer | or in the hook shell script | |
| 21:12:40 | dtroyer | sure, that way we don't have to wait | |
| 21:12:56 | dtroyer | just copy over the new one for that run? | |
| 21:13:47 | dtroyer | it is a good sign that the devstack stuff works with 0.9.12... | |
| 21:13:48 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/fairy-slipper: Retire fairy-slipper API doc tools project https://review.openstack.org/417683 | |
| 21:15:38 | openstackgerrit | Steve Martinelli proposed openstack/python-openstackclient: Run functional tests with SDK 0.9.12 https://review.openstack.org/418650 | |
| 21:16:00 | stevemar | dtroyer: tossed up something | |