| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-10-06 | |||
| 13:28:20 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Make RateLimitingTaskManager the TaskManager https://review.openstack.org/604520 | |
| 13:28:49 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add support for per-service rate limits https://review.openstack.org/604521 | |
| 13:40:09 | mordred | ml: comments left on your wrapper method patch | |
| 13:40:33 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add some warnings and clarifications for discovery https://review.openstack.org/606113 | |
| 13:49:30 | ml | mordred: thanks. Will take a look | |
| 14:01:02 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Replace TaskManager with a semaphore and lock https://review.openstack.org/604926 | |
| 14:01:25 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Replace TaskManager with a semaphore and lock https://review.openstack.org/604926 | |
| 14:11:28 | mordred | ml: sorry it took so long to review that - that OOM test timeout was really annoying :) | |
| 14:12:03 | ml | Nah, it's fine man. It didn't block me at all. | |
| 14:14:33 | ml | Actually, I'm really grateful that you could review it that quickly. | |
| 15:33:52 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: Make RateLimitingTaskManager the TaskManager https://review.openstack.org/604520 | |
| 15:33:52 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: Import rate limiting TaskManager from nodepool https://review.openstack.org/574285 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-10-08 | |||
| 09:27:52 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/os-api-ref master: tests: Support Sphinx 1.8+ https://review.openstack.org/607984 | |
| 11:38:55 | openstackgerrit | Matthias Lisin proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: openstackcloud.py: Implement FWaaS wrapper methods. https://review.openstack.org/604811 | |
| 13:43:12 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Correct updating baremetal nodes by name or ID https://review.openstack.org/608674 | |
| 13:43:22 | dtantsur | mordred: sigh ^^^ | |
| 13:47:21 | cmurphy | dtroyer: this command removal https://review.openstack.org/546924 got released in 3.16.0 instead of a 4.0, was that intentional? | |
| 13:50:31 | dtroyer | cmurphy: I can't recall why I did that without waiting, I've made other things wait… is it causing trouble? | |
| 13:53:29 | cmurphy | dtroyer: it caught us (suse internal) by surprise is all, we can update our automation but i wouldn't expect to have to without a major release | |
| 13:55:04 | dtroyer | you are correct about that assumption, which is why I'm frustrated why I can't remember doing that… | |
| 13:55:34 | dtroyer | it also points out we may need to do better at deprecation warnings | |
| 13:55:44 | dtroyer | would a noiser warning have been noticed in your case? | |
| 14:00:00 | cmurphy | dtroyer: probably not tbh | |
| 14:00:19 | cmurphy | but that's on us | |
| 14:01:01 | dtroyer | but like you said you're not expecting it now… | |
| 14:01:43 | dtroyer | ok, I was just curious if my expectations/experience on scripted usage matched the real-world | |
| 14:01:44 | dtroyer | thanks | |
| 15:48:49 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Correct updating baremetal nodes by name or ID https://review.openstack.org/608674 | |
| 18:20:31 | openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add volume pool list command https://review.openstack.org/608740 | |
| 21:45:21 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add --property option to 'server rebuild' command https://review.openstack.org/608350 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-10-09 | |||
| 06:35:19 | openstackgerrit | Fan Zhang proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add --key-name and --key-unset option for server rebuild API. https://review.openstack.org/576422 | |
| 10:54:08 | openstackgerrit | Julie Pichon proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Allow endpoint filtering on both project and project-filtering https://review.openstack.org/608912 | |
| 11:33:52 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: [WIP] Wire in retries for all baremetal actions https://review.openstack.org/603427 | |
| 11:43:28 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: [WIP] Wire in retries for all baremetal actions https://review.openstack.org/603427 | |
| 11:46:50 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: [WIP] Wire in retries for all baremetal actions https://review.openstack.org/603427 | |
| 13:23:55 | openstackgerrit | Julie Pichon proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Allow endpoint filtering on both project and project-domain https://review.openstack.org/608912 | |
| 13:31:17 | openstackgerrit | Vieri proposed openstack/os-service-types master: Don't quote {posargs} in tox.ini https://review.openstack.org/608973 | |
| 15:28:34 | smcginnis | dtroyer: I had a question about the cliff autodoc you mentioned. Is there something extra that needs to be done to use that? I get the error: No commands found in the "openstack.volume.v2" namespace using the "volume capability" command name/pattern. Are you sure this is correct and the application being documented is installed? | |
| 15:28:52 | smcginnis | dtroyer: This is for the next command I had started to work on, so different than the one you had commented on. | |
| 15:35:51 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Wire in retries for all baremetal actions https://review.openstack.org/603427 | |
| 15:41:54 | dtroyer | smcginnis: I didn't think anything special needed to be set up, we're already using it in the OSC repo. | |
| 15:42:21 | dtroyer | I'm looking to see if there is any additional config required... | |
| 15:42:48 | smcginnis | dtroyer: Do you know how it maps the command name to the class name? Maybe I have something messed up there. | |
| 15:43:13 | dtroyer | it's part of cliff so it uses the entrypoint mapping | |
| 15:52:09 | smcginnis | dtroyer: Got it. I needed a "*" at the end to pick up the actual command. I had "volume capability" but needed "volume capability *". | |
| 15:56:37 | smcginnis | dtroyer: I'm realizing both cinder list-pools and get-capabilities are really backend-centric commands and "volume capability show" doesn't make sense. Do you think "volume backend capabilities" and "volume backend pools" make sense? Or should it be the long "volume backend capability show" and "volume backend pool list" form be preferrable? | |
| 15:57:06 | smcginnis | Personally I like the shorter, but having "list" and "show" seems to be the more commonly used formats. | |
| 16:00:04 | dtroyer | smcginnis: this is the hardest part, naming things. 'backend' by itself is still too generic so it needs the qualifier, if something other than 'volume' makes sense that would be fine, but I can't think of one, 'volume backend' seems correct for what you are describing. but ya, it is really long | |
| 16:00:55 | dtroyer | is 'storage capabilities' or 'storage pools' too generic? we have multiple types of storage so it may be | |
| 16:02:13 | smcginnis | Yeah, I think "volume backend" is used enough that it most likely would make sense to users, wheras "storage foo" might be too generic. | |
| 16:03:03 | smcginnis | What about including the "show" and "list" at the end vs just "volume backend capabilities" and "volume backend pools"? | |
| 16:04:00 | dtroyer | I'll strongly recommend to stick with the 'object verb' command format…it's less to remember which verb to use based on the kind of output you want than to rememebr which commands don't have one | |
| 16:21:21 | smcginnis | dtroyer: OK, so "volume backend capability show" and "volume backend pool list" then? | |
| 18:48:38 | dtroyer | smcginnis: I think so | |
| 18:49:53 | smcginnis | dtroyer: Cool, thanks. That's what I'm working on now. | |
| 20:26:49 | openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add volume backend capability show command https://review.openstack.org/609122 | |
| 20:32:06 | openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add volume backend capability show command https://review.openstack.org/609122 | |
| 20:56:40 | openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add volume pool list command https://review.openstack.org/608740 | |
| 20:57:29 | openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add volume backend pool list command https://review.openstack.org/608740 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-10-10 | |||
| 02:33:03 | openstackgerrit | Nguyen Van Trung proposed openstack/cliff master: Don't quote {posargs} in tox.ini https://review.openstack.org/609185 | |
| 10:04:44 | mordred | ml: that patch looks great! | |
| 10:05:28 | mordred | samueldmq: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/604811 <-- you might find this interesting | |
| 10:05:44 | ml | Thanks for the review! | |
| 10:10:15 | samueldmq | mordred: oh that's using the sdk data model | |
| 10:15:32 | samueldmq | mordred: ml : commented on that. suggested a few improvements | |
| 10:15:36 | mordred | samueldmq: yah - I haven't gotten far enough along to explore that yet - but I've been thinking that we could migrate from the normalize methods to using the sdk data model - and maybe some times have some of the logic be in the sdk proxy methods - I was going to try it with create_image | |
| 10:15:40 | mordred | samueldmq: awesome, thanks! | |
| 10:16:15 | ml | samueldmq: Thanks, will have a look# | |
| 10:16:36 | samueldmq | mordred: we'd still need something like normalzie anyways | |
| 10:17:09 | samueldmq | I know sdk data model already maps some of the attributes, such as enabled -> is_enabled in the data model definition | |
| 10:17:27 | samueldmq | but we'd need to map that against the current shade contract/data model | |
| 10:17:32 | samueldmq | because we don't want to change that right | |
| 10:20:17 | mordred | yes, you're exactly right | |
| 10:20:49 | mordred | although maybe it'll be enough to just update the sdk model to be the same as the normalize contract in shade? | |
| 10:21:33 | samueldmq | if the sdk side is okay updating their contact, it'd be awesome | |
| 10:22:28 | ml | samueldmq: you think it's a good idea to put 14 parameters in the function signature? Feels messy | |
| 10:23:12 | samueldmq | ml: well, see https://github.com/openstack/openstacksdk/blob/master/openstack/cloud/openstackcloud.py#L6751-L6766 for create_server | |
| 10:23:25 | samueldmq | ml: don't necessarily need to put in the signature, see the valid_kwargs annotation | |
| 10:23:50 | samueldmq | ml: I'd probably go with that as you don't do any work on the parameters before passsing on to the server | |
| 10:24:35 | ml | ahh, yeah. @_utils.valid_kwargs sounds good | |
| 10:26:12 | samueldmq | ml: awesome. btw I didn't mean you should because create_server does more params than that | |
| 10:26:13 | ml | also, sadly no, name_or_id doesn't uniquely identify the resource since multiple resources can have the same name | |
| 10:26:20 | samueldmq | but for the reasons I put on the review :) | |
| 10:27:26 | samueldmq | ml: so please make it clear in the docs that filters might need to be used when a name is provided | |
| 10:27:51 | samueldmq | also, document what happens if you provider a name and filters combination that gets you more than one resource | |
| 10:28:12 | samueldmq | when you're callling the update or delete mehtod, for example. does it update'em all? delete them all? throws exception? | |
| 10:28:38 | samueldmq | s/throws/raises , throwing exceptions remembers me of java | |
| 10:30:18 | ml | alright, I'll add :raises [exc]: where necessary | |
| 10:30:57 | samueldmq | ml: nice. thanks for that, it's awesome work | |
| 10:31:11 | samueldmq | I have to go afk for a bit | |
| 10:31:26 | ml | samueldmq: Thanks for the review. Will fix asap. | |
| 10:58:12 | ml | wow, I found more unexpected behavior than I expected. Have to touch the resources once again | |
| 12:09:20 | mnaser | mordred: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/44686 | |
| 12:09:24 | mnaser | I’ve reviewed it a while back | |
| 12:09:38 | mnaser | And I think it’s mostly pretty well ready I think | |
| 12:34:22 | dtantsur | hi folks, got a second for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/608674/ ? | |
| 12:34:39 | dtantsur | apparently make baremetal update right from the first attempt is too hard :( | |
| 12:58:52 | mordred | dtantsur: lgtm. Shrews ? | |
| 12:59:09 | Shrews | eh? | |
| 13:00:18 | Shrews | { self._alternate_id() or 'id': self.id } works? | |