| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-10-19 | |||
| 14:34:35 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/cliff master: Remove dead files https://review.openstack.org/611888 | |
| 14:34:36 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/cliff master: WIP: Add support for environment variables https://review.openstack.org/611890 | |
| 14:34:37 | mordred | dtantsur: amazingly enough - all of the varied use cases this solves for are represented by actual real-world issues | |
| 14:35:11 | mordred | dtantsur: you're think that the server side would just be able to handle all of this without the client needing to care ... but oh golly | |
| 14:35:15 | dtantsur | that damn reality; I like dealing with round things in vacuum much more | |
| 14:35:18 | mordred | right? | |
| 14:35:23 | dtantsur | ofc | |
| 14:35:32 | mordred | dtantsur: remind me to tell you the story of the time we crashed the HP Public Cloud | |
| 14:35:45 | mordred | just by running nodepool against its public api | |
| 14:35:58 | dtantsur | OH I'd LOVE to hear that | |
| 14:37:02 | mordred | they had a hardware load balancer / api gateway in front of the api services - which would time out client connections for requests that took too long | |
| 14:37:23 | mordred | so, on receiving a 500 from the load balancer - we'd auto retry again | |
| 14:37:55 | mordred | problem was - the requests were taking so long because there was a missing index on a sql table, so each request was causing a long running query to get started in mysql | |
| 14:39:00 | dtantsur | LOOOL | |
| 14:39:47 | mordred | bcause it was doing a full table scan on the server table for every operation - oh, and also they hadn't been cleaning out old deleted entries from the table | |
| 14:40:19 | dtantsur | hashtag successstory | |
| 14:40:25 | mordred | so we'd to, while True: try: create_server ; break except: delete_server | |
| 14:40:42 | mordred | every create would fail, at which point we'd attempt to clean up after ourselves | |
| 14:40:53 | mordred | in a tight loop with no pausing | |
| 14:41:11 | mordred | and then everything melted to the ground :) | |
| 14:41:35 | dtantsur | well, you gave them a free DoS attack testing :D some people pay for that | |
| 14:41:41 | mordred | RIGHT? | |
| 14:41:53 | mordred | this is how we try to convince more people to give us resources for nodepool | |
| 14:42:03 | mordred | "we promise we can find the errors in your cloud deployment" | |
| 14:43:11 | dtantsur | okay, I should stop laughing so loudly, my wife will become suspicious :D | |
| 14:50:11 | mordred | hehehe | |
| 14:50:41 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: Add support for client-side rate limiting https://review.openstack.org/605043 | |
| 14:51:07 | mordred | dtantsur: figuring out how to write unittests for this thing is going to be ... fun | |
| 14:51:18 | kmalloc | Mock | |
| 14:51:22 | kmalloc | Lots of mock | |
| 14:51:54 | mordred | kmalloc: I dunno ... seems like a good risk of testing that we wrote some mocks | |
| 14:51:58 | kmalloc | My recommendation is mock plus freezegun, check to make sure x calls were made | |
| 14:52:05 | dtantsur | mock the heck out of it \o/ | |
| 14:52:11 | kmalloc | With the right args | |
| 14:53:37 | kmalloc | You can introspect the magicmock object and see what was called | |
| 14:54:27 | kmalloc | The underlying request stuff is tested elsewhere. | |
| 14:54:41 | mordred | oh - totally - definitely not worried about testing that | |
| 14:54:57 | kmalloc | So we just want to check the ratelimiting and locking. | |
| 14:55:12 | dtantsur | oh, how I "love" ironicclient+keystoneauth spitting "Service catalog is empty" on wrong magical combination of arguments.. | |
| 14:55:14 | mordred | mostly just want to make sure we're hitting things like dead locks and max concurrency and stuff | |
| 14:55:19 | kmalloc | All doable with simple wsgiref webtest app. | |
| 14:56:00 | kmalloc | You're looking to do a simple reflector thing :) | |
| 14:56:09 | mordred | you're a simple reflector thing | |
| 14:56:42 | dtantsur | lol | |
| 14:59:08 | mordred | kmalloc: this is more moist than I prefer | |
| 14:59:45 | kmalloc | I suggest a lemur dryer then ;) | |
| 15:45:23 | mnaser | mordred: i was just hit by this .. https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/42913 -- do you mind giving it another shipit if it makes sense to you? | |
| 15:45:36 | mnaser | cc Shrews rcarrillocruz ^ | |
| 15:55:14 | mordred | mnaser: seems reasonable - but also that kinda feels like a default behavior sdk should have on the backend | |
| 15:55:34 | mordred | oh - wait- I misread soemthing | |
| 16:09:31 | mnaser | mordred: in this case a cloud with multiple users having “admin” would fail (in different domains) | |
| 16:09:54 | mnaser | mordred: thank you! | |
| 17:07:42 | kmalloc | mordred: the limits code for SDK looks correct | |
| 18:17:58 | mordred | kmalloc: yay! | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-10-20 | |||
| 11:03:51 | openstackgerrit | Yuval Shalev proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Added assign function to identity proxy https://review.openstack.org/612006 | |
| 11:08:05 | openstackgerrit | Yuval Shalev proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Added assign function to identity v3 proxy https://review.openstack.org/612006 | |
| 14:14:46 | openstackgerrit | Yuval Shalev proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Added assign function to identity v3 proxy https://review.openstack.org/612006 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-10-21 | |||
| 02:17:45 | openstackgerrit | Daniel Speichert proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Fix upload of Swift object smaller than segment limit (create_object) https://review.openstack.org/612113 | |
| 12:43:27 | openstackgerrit | Maxim Babushkin proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add vnic_type to create_port valid kwargs https://review.openstack.org/612162 | |
| 13:33:12 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add support for per-service rate limits https://review.openstack.org/604521 | |
| 15:26:09 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Replace TaskManager with a keystoneauth concurrency https://review.openstack.org/604926 | |
| 15:26:09 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add support for per-service rate limits https://review.openstack.org/604521 | |
| 15:30:14 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Don't start task managers passed in to Connection https://review.openstack.org/612186 | |
| 15:43:34 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Don't start task managers passed in to Connection https://review.openstack.org/612186 | |
| 15:54:49 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Replace TaskManager with a keystoneauth concurrency https://review.openstack.org/604926 | |
| 15:54:49 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add support for per-service rate limits https://review.openstack.org/604521 | |
| 15:59:19 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Replace TaskManager with a keystoneauth concurrency https://review.openstack.org/604926 | |
| 18:03:43 | samueldmq | a few weeks ago we had a discussion around some clouds that use radosgw implementing swift APIs in OpenStack deployments | |
| 18:04:14 | samueldmq | we concluded that we don't need to support radosgw in SDK, and that's the very right thing aligned with OpenStack principles | |
| 18:04:44 | samueldmq | OpenStack Primarily Produces Software: '[...] We expect people who say they run “OpenStack” to run the software produced by and in the community, rather than alternative implementations of the API.' | |
| 18:04:52 | samueldmq | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/principles.html | |
| 18:04:56 | samueldmq | just fyi | |
| 18:15:48 | mordred | samueldmq: well - we actually do support people running radosgw - and are using sdk to talk to both swift and radosgw in the upload-to-swift ansible role for swift | |
| 18:16:41 | mordred | samueldmq: I agree with the principle in general (I think I helped write it) - but in this case it's not clear to a user of an openstack cloud whether the cloud in question is running swift or radosgw - for the most part the differences have been reasonably minor | |
| 18:18:11 | samueldmq | mordred: interesting. for the user I agree it's not fair to say "I can't talk to that cloud because t does not meet the OpenStack principles, please talk to the cloud provider" | |
| 18:19:10 | mordred | yeah. similarly we have several piecesof logic in sdk to support weird behaviors in rackspace public cloud that also aren't *really* openstack | |
| 18:19:23 | samueldmq | but we also need to be careful how far that goes, for now it's just one in the future might be multiple code saying they support our apis | |
| 18:19:31 | mordred | samueldmq: but I think in each case we have to make a judgement call about whether or not we're going too far | |
| 18:19:33 | mordred | samueldmq: ++ | |
| 18:19:40 | mordred | exactly | |
| 18:20:07 | mordred | like - we got a patch a couple of years ago from someone who wanted to support availability zones in a bunch of objects where openstack does not actually supportthem | |
| 18:20:25 | mordred | and we rejected that - because it was actually changing semantics of the cloud in an incompatible way | |
| 18:20:32 | samueldmq | mordred: in that specific case I had a test that did deleted(resoure)->get(resource) and it was not returning the exception we expected as per the swift api. it returned 200. | |
| 18:21:23 | mordred | samueldmq: yah- I think I remember that - and I don't know that we can do much more to work around that - because if the cloudreturns 200 when an object isn't there ... | |
| 18:21:29 | samueldmq | mordred: nice, that's a good case. looks like we should write down that somewhere in our docs | |
| 18:21:48 | mordred | ++ totally agree | |
| 18:22:09 | samueldmq | mordred: it's broken :-) we may even work around some services that are widely adopted (ceph radosgw and rackspace).. but not around craziness | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-10-22 | |||
| 08:47:13 | openstackgerrit | Vishakha Agarwal proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Updated the take_actions for unified limits https://review.openstack.org/612283 | |
| 08:50:33 | openstackgerrit | Vishakha Agarwal proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Updated the take_actions for unified limits https://review.openstack.org/612283 | |
| 10:46:09 | dtantsur | mordred: hi! what if we start putting the old microversion headers to https://service-types.openstack.org/service-types.json ? | |
| 10:47:04 | dtantsur | I'm just trying to understand how I know X-OpenStack-Ironic-Api-Version from just "baremetal" | |
| 10:48:05 | dtantsur | though maybe I should use service_types_by_project hmmm | |
| 10:48:08 | cdent | old microversion headers -- | |
| 10:48:12 | cdent | ;) | |
| 10:48:14 | dtantsur | ikr? | |
| 10:48:24 | dtantsur | but even nova did not use the new one from the beginning | |
| 10:49:05 | cdent | I'm not sure that nova has fully bought in to the new way, thus just happen to accept it because i put the code in | |
| 10:49:41 | dtantsur | heh | |
| 10:49:52 | dtantsur | oh, I don't need service_types_by_project, I need project_by_service_type :( | |
| 11:09:35 | openstackgerrit | Maxim Babushkin proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add vnic_type to create_port valid kwargs https://review.openstack.org/612162 | |