| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-08-13 | |||
| 09:12:27 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Use the base Resource's JSON patch support in Image https://review.openstack.org/591314 | |
| 09:51:31 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: [WIP] VIF API for baremetal https://review.openstack.org/591324 | |
| 10:01:39 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: [WIP] Add VIF API for baremetal https://review.openstack.org/591324 | |
| 10:26:53 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: [WIP] Add VIF API for baremetal https://review.openstack.org/591324 | |
| 11:40:40 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/osc-lib master: Replaced a few references to LP bugs with storyboard https://review.openstack.org/586453 | |
| 12:27:59 | dtantsur | TheJulia: early comments welcome: https://review.openstack.org/591324 | |
| 12:48:42 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: Add simple create/show/delete functional tests for all baremetal resources https://review.openstack.org/590806 | |
| 12:55:28 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: fix 2 typos in documentation https://review.openstack.org/587624 | |
| 13:26:56 | TheJulia | dtantsur: thanks! Added to my review queue :) | |
| 14:03:18 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix inconsistency (nit) https://review.openstack.org/572771 | |
| 14:29:37 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: baremetal: add support for VIF attach/detach API https://review.openstack.org/591324 | |
| 14:33:46 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: baremetal: add support for VIF attach/detach API https://review.openstack.org/591324 | |
| 16:05:24 | openstackgerrit | Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: DNM: implement block-storage backup resource https://review.openstack.org/591445 | |
| 17:13:56 | amotoki | dtroyer: is there any chance to land https://review.openstack.org/#/c/590425/ in stable/rocky? | |
| 17:14:51 | amotoki | dtroyer: this breaks neutronclient OSC plugin gate for a while. I would like to have this in Rocky and release it as osc-lib 1.11.1. | |
| 17:23:00 | guilhermesp | hello everyone! Could some one clarify some questions about openstacksdk? I have two different use cases that I'd like to discuss | |
| 17:24:32 | guilhermesp | In advance: a user can create a router with an external network via python clients and horizon, but if a regular user wants to create this resource via api, I can't be done because is not allowed by the network policy | |
| 17:24:33 | guilhermesp | https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/1dda2bca862b1268c0f5ae39b7508f1b1cab6f15/etc/policy.json#L105 | |
| 17:24:58 | guilhermesp | One of the user cases is using an ansible module to configure routers https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/modules/os_router_module.html#os-router-module | |
| 17:25:23 | guilhermesp | and another is a role that attempts to configure a router without success http://logs.openstack.org/94/588594/10/check/ansible-role-cloud-launcher-functional/9507169/ara-report/result/7ead3794-7594-4b91-aef1-4a761cbe3eca/ | |
| 17:25:50 | guilhermesp | so my question is: is the network policy consistent? | |
| 17:26:07 | guilhermesp | mordred mnaser ^ | |
| 17:27:28 | mnaser | i'll dig in a bit but i wonder if a bug report already exists for this somewhere | |
| 17:28:50 | openstackgerrit | Tim Rozet proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Cinder: Add version checking https://review.openstack.org/590807 | |
| 17:39:43 | openstackgerrit | Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: DNM: implement block-storage backup resource https://review.openstack.org/591445 | |
| 18:11:12 | mordred | guilhermesp: the situation with what 'regular' users can or can't do on a given neutron related to routers and external networks is about as far away from being consistent behavior as is possible | |
| 18:11:43 | mordred | just about every possible combination of being able to do or not do exists in the wild - and that's just looking at public clouds | |
| 18:12:05 | mordred | there isn't really a way for sdk to know whether a given user can perform a task based on policy settings on the server side | |
| 18:12:16 | mordred | unfortunately | |
| 18:22:34 | mnaser | mordred: this seems to be failing against our public cloud (and both devstack).. openstack cli seem to work | |
| 19:30:09 | mordred | mnaser: awesome | |
| 19:30:25 | mordred | mnaser: well - openstack cli uses sdk for these - so something somewhere is unhappy :) | |
| 19:30:38 | mnaser | mordred: so sounds very much like a module thing | |
| 19:32:05 | mnaser | guilhermesp: maybe you can have a look over https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/lib/ansible/modules/cloud/openstack/os_router.py if you have sometime | |
| 19:32:18 | guilhermesp | yeah, I'm going to take a look at this | |
| 19:32:18 | mnaser | and see what difference is it being called with compared to osc | |
| 20:28:27 | dtroyer | amotoki: yes, I had meant to do that earlier, apologies for the delay... | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-08-14 | |||
| 07:23:24 | openstackgerrit | Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: DNM: implement block-storage backup resource https://review.openstack.org/591445 | |
| 08:19:33 | usr2033 | hi, are there any way to check connection scope[domain/project]? | |
| 08:50:33 | openstackgerrit | Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: add pool member operating status https://review.openstack.org/591281 | |
| 11:22:35 | dtantsur | no microversion talks for us in Berlin :( | |
| 11:28:09 | cdent | dtantsur: :( | |
| 11:28:27 | cdent | it really does seem like we need an actual openstack conference | |
| 11:28:49 | cdent | maybe it is time for an alterstack | |
| 11:28:57 | dtantsur | ++ | |
| 11:41:54 | dtantsur | cdent: but careful, this can lead you to asking for an openstack foundation to govern it :D | |
| 11:42:20 | cdent | /o\ | |
| 12:08:27 | dtantsur | mordred: hey, is it intentional that functional tests are not running on stable branches? e.g. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/591617/ | |
| 12:50:40 | openstackgerrit | Matthias Lisin proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: fwaas: Add support for FWaaS v2.0 API https://review.openstack.org/591650 | |
| 12:53:07 | mordred | dtantsur: nope! that seems like a thing we should fix | |
| 12:53:16 | dtantsur | indeed | |
| 12:53:19 | mordred | dtantsur: and BOO for our microversion talk not getting accepted | |
| 12:53:26 | dtantsur | very much BOOOO | |
| 12:53:34 | dtantsur | you were right, we should have included "Edge" in the title :( | |
| 12:54:06 | mordred | edge solves everyone's problems | |
| 12:56:12 | cdent | Microversions are very edgy | |
| 12:56:35 | cdent | Microversions: We'll sell you the whole API but you'll only get the edge | |
| 12:56:39 | cdent | etc | |
| 14:18:17 | openstackgerrit | Matthias Lisin proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: fwaas: Add support for FWaaS v2.0 API https://review.openstack.org/591650 | |
| 15:13:36 | mordred | cdent: Microversions: Edge edge containers edge nfv micro-services golang edge? | |
| 15:14:15 | cdent | I think you need an innovation in there | |
| 15:24:03 | openstackgerrit | Doug Hellmann proposed openstack/os-api-ref master: import zuul job settings from project-config https://review.openstack.org/591750 | |
| 15:24:04 | openstackgerrit | Doug Hellmann proposed openstack/os-api-ref master: switch documentation job to new PTI https://review.openstack.org/591751 | |
| 17:11:36 | openstackgerrit | Andreas Jaeger proposed openstack/os-api-ref master: Fix sphinx-build invocation https://review.openstack.org/591790 | |
| 17:44:19 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Detailed help message for QoS max-burst-kbps value https://review.openstack.org/588168 | |
| 17:46:43 | openstackgerrit | Doug Hellmann proposed openstack/os-api-ref master: switch documentation job to new PTI https://review.openstack.org/591751 | |
| 17:46:43 | openstackgerrit | Doug Hellmann proposed openstack/os-api-ref master: Fix sphinx-build invocation https://review.openstack.org/591790 | |
| 17:59:43 | samueldmq | dtantsur: hi you around? | |
| 18:02:34 | openstackgerrit | Samuel de Medeiros Queiroz proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Refactor require_service to use conn.has_service https://review.openstack.org/591029 | |
| 18:03:47 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-api-ref master: import zuul job settings from project-config https://review.openstack.org/591750 | |
| 18:04:11 | samueldmq | dtantsur: wanted to talk about your comments on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/591029. but I just saw you addressed them on another patch | |
| 18:06:05 | dtantsur | samueldmq: hi! yeah, essentially I had a competing patch. I'm not sure if we still need to switch to has_service or just remove the TODO. | |
| 18:07:06 | samueldmq | dtantsur: I still need to do that, since the get_endpoint stuff is still there | |
| 18:07:32 | samueldmq | dtantsur: what cases would we need to care about the verison, do you have examples? | |
| 18:07:41 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-api-ref master: Fix sphinx-build invocation https://review.openstack.org/591790 | |
| 18:07:59 | dtantsur | samueldmq: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/590806/2/openstack/tests/functional/baremetal/test_baremetal_port_group.py@20 this API has a hard minimum requirement | |
| 18:08:02 | samueldmq | the upper abstraction layer (previously shade) deals with different versions right? | |
| 18:08:20 | dtantsur | samueldmq: yeah, but we need to know what we can test on the given cloud | |
| 18:08:42 | dtantsur | e.g. in this case we should skip portgroup tests if portgroups are not available | |
| 18:09:06 | samueldmq | dtantsur: gotcha, microversions is hard :( | |
| 18:09:31 | samueldmq | dtantsur: and then portgroups is something available as a new feature in an API (url/method,etc) that already existed? | |
| 18:09:32 | dtantsur | oh they are (don't tell mordred) | |
| 18:10:08 | dtantsur | samueldmq: it's a new set of endpoints. but we do have features introduced on existing APIs as well | |
| 18:10:29 | dtantsur | we're at version 1.46 now, we have quite a history :D | |
| 18:10:31 | samueldmq | dtantsur: if it's a new set we could have guessed by trying and getting 404? | |
| 18:10:44 | dtantsur | samueldmq: we could here, but not in future cases | |
| 18:11:02 | samueldmq | dtantsur: why? | |
| 18:11:29 | dtantsur | samueldmq: imagine adding a parameter or response value | |
| 18:11:51 | dtantsur | or even worse: acceptable value for an old parameter (we have a lot of these) | |
| 18:11:51 | samueldmq | dtantsur: but shade normalizes the responses anyway doesnt it? | |
| 18:12:08 | dtantsur | sure, but you need to know whether you can test something or not | |
| 18:12:41 | samueldmq | ok so it's not a matter shade can make things transparent to the end user | |
| 18:12:55 | dtantsur | right, but that's not my point | |
| 18:12:58 | samueldmq | it's about how we discover the versions so we test the if/else branches of it accordingly | |
| 18:13:20 | samueldmq | because shade does all the if/else to make thigns transparent to its users, correct/ | |
| 18:13:34 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-api-ref master: switch documentation job to new PTI https://review.openstack.org/591751 | |
| 18:13:37 | samueldmq | how do we call shade now? can I just say abstraction layer? | |
| 18:13:55 | dtantsur | I call it "the shade part" :) | |
| 18:14:46 | dtantsur | sorry, I had to bail out for dinner. we can talk tomorrow about this if you don't mind. | |
| 18:15:09 | samueldmq | dtantsur: sure, bon apetit! | |