Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-sdks - 2020-03-26
15:25:02 mordred yeah
15:25:03 smcginnis Yeah
15:25:05 smcginnis ;)
15:26:05 mordred so - in this case, I think releasing a quick 0.44.1 bugfix and then removing 0.44.0 from pypi will unbreak people - as long as we wait for u-c to bump to 0.44.1 in openstack before doing so
15:26:14 mordred obviously a discussion for release team
15:26:30 mordred and first step is getting the fix landed so we can release 0.44.1 which is uncontroversial
15:26:53 mordred gtema: I think maybe let's disable the nodepool test for the requires-python fix so we can get it landed, then re-enable
15:27:07 gtema ok, agree
15:27:25 gtema but then also have otc vendor profile fix in
15:28:25 mordred ++
15:28:32 openstackgerrit Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Re-add nodepool functional test https://review.opendev.org/715245
15:28:32 openstackgerrit Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add requires-python entry indicating 3.6 is required https://review.opendev.org/715243
15:28:33 gtema cool
15:28:44 mordred gtema: you wanna rebase otc patch on requires-python patch?
15:28:50 gtema sure
15:29:44 vphilippon An alternative to having to remove 0.44.0 would be to re-release 0.43.0 as 0.44.1, and release the "original" 0.44.0 with the metadata, as 0.45.0.
15:30:07 gtema oh, this would be too complicated
15:30:16 mordred smcginnis: I -2'd the UC bump for sdk: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/715199/
15:30:20 mordred actually ...
15:30:27 vphilippon I believe so, but I share the option :)
15:30:38 mordred I think I like that idea, weirdly
15:31:08 gtema 43 with content of 44?
15:31:13 mordred actually
15:31:45 mordred I think it should be "revert furturist patch. land. release. unrevert and add requires-python. land. release"
15:32:16 gtema eeh, project cleanup now depends on futurist
15:32:34 mordred yeah. lemme see if I can make a patch real quick - we can look at it in parallel and see which we like
15:34:45 vphilippon I'd say if you are able to act quickly, the option of removing 0.44.0 remains sane-ish. If times has to pass (for whatever reason, build system, discussion, etc.), Then the revert-fix-release pattern by republishing older version as newer becomes better, IMHO
15:35:33 vphilippon I'm not a maintainers here though, simply sharing my pip experience expertise here.
15:40:12 openstackgerrit Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Revert "Switch to futurist for concurrency" https://review.opendev.org/715249
15:40:13 openstackgerrit Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Revert "Revert "Switch to futurist for concurrency"" https://review.opendev.org/715250
15:40:36 mordred gtema: ^^ I think we can get both of those landed and released today
15:40:53 dtantsur and the cleanup patch too?
15:41:05 dtantsur I wonder if it's much easier to re-release the same hash as a newer version
15:41:16 mordred then the release notes would be very strange :)
15:41:26 dtantsur maybe :)
15:41:34 dtantsur you can try it locally with `git tag` and see
15:41:49 mordred dtantsur: I modified the revert so that we don't need to revert the cleanup patch - it just won't use futurist for it for that one release
15:42:03 mordred dtantsur: k. I'll try that real quick
15:42:22 gtema and actually nobody will use it so far (likely)
15:42:28 mordred dtantsur: considering we just released the cleanup feature today - I think if we rleease 0.45 and 0.46 back to back - it should be safe
15:42:53 dtantsur mordred: maybe we can/should default to concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor actually?
15:43:08 dtantsur the same API as futurist, so people can switch easily?
15:44:50 mordred dtantsur: oh - that's not a terrible idea
15:45:09 gtema keep your thought, otherwise mordred will create 30 different patches and we will die ensuring we approve them in correct order ;)
15:45:12 mordred people who want to use futurist.GreenThreadExecutor can still pass it
15:45:18 dtantsur exactly
15:45:38 mordred I think I like that even more. it's basically what we have above except without the second re-revert
15:45:48 mordred maybe should rewrite the release note slightly differently
15:46:09 tremble mordred, Should doing dict(some_resource) result in a *all* parameters (body and URI based) showing up in the new dict ?
15:46:41 mordred tremble: that's an excellent question - I believe so?
15:47:37 mordred dtantsur: the re-tag idea did not work :)
15:47:42 gtema oh, I remember some interesting stuff about that when fighting with replacing cloud layer - something funny was there for sure
15:47:58 dtantsur mordred: oookay, let's go with this patch
15:48:10 dtantsur (the release note could use an update indeed)
15:49:31 gtema tremble, we prefer using https://opendev.org/openstack/openstacksdk/src/branch/master/openstack/resource.py#L918 (to_dict) for those reasons
15:50:14 tremble gtema, That'll do me as a fix :)
15:50:53 tremble gtema, Would misbehaving with dict() be considered a bug?
15:51:05 tremble and if so, where do you want reports :)
15:51:16 openstackgerrit Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Revert "Switch to futurist for concurrency" https://review.opendev.org/715249
15:51:50 mordred dtantsur, gtema: ^^ I think that should fix the issue. we can land that, gtema's otc fix and then cut an 0.45
15:51:53 gtema tremble - I would not say it is a bug, resource implementation is incredible woodoo
15:52:04 mordred then I still think we should put ina. requires-python for 0.46
15:52:09 tremble gtema, I noticed :)
15:52:39 mordred smcginnis: per scrollback - I think we found a solution that doesn't require removing anything
15:53:07 mordred vphilippon: thanks for the report! we shoudl have a fixed release up soonish (will take a couple of hours for all of the gears to crank)
15:53:27 gtema mordred, so I rebase vendor patch on top of 715249, right?
15:54:45 smcginnis I will watch for the release and try to get it through asap.
15:54:51 smcginnis And the requirements update.
15:55:11 vphilippon @mordred: Alrighty, thanks a lot for the quick reaction. And thanks to everyone else too :)
15:55:54 tremble gtema, to_dict() still seems to exclude the resource.URI entry
15:56:29 gtema ah, and you need those explicitely?
15:56:49 openstackgerrit Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add requires-python entry indicating 3.6 is required https://review.opendev.org/715243
15:56:49 openstackgerrit Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Change default image type in the OTC vendor profile https://review.opendev.org/715183
15:57:03 mordred gtema: rebase done ^^
15:57:09 gtema ok, thks mordred
15:57:17 mordred gtema: I'm guessing this is for returning data to an ansible module - which needs json-able dict
15:57:40 mordred smcginnis: I think the constraints patch that's there for us already is now safe
15:58:15 mordred smcginnis: but - we can also just wait to reduce churn
15:58:21 mordred smcginnis: I'll get release patches up asap
15:58:34 smcginnis OK. I need to update that so it's python_version aware. Might as well wait a bit.
15:59:11 tremble gtema, I wanted one for completeness, I can manually copy it over
15:59:34 gtema we can add a parameter for it in to_dict if necessary
15:59:59 tremble yeah, which then requires another release before I could use it in my Ansible module :)
16:00:13 gtema sure :D
16:00:35 elmiko API SIG office hour now open \o/
16:00:39 gtema lots of releases last days, therefore you might need to wait just one day, or one hour
16:00:40 mordred we're killing tremble here
16:00:51 tremble It'd be nice as a parameter, but I wouldn't prioritise it.
16:02:28 openstackgerrit Duc Truong proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Remove kwargs validation for identity project updates https://review.opendev.org/715255
16:03:27 openstackgerrit Duc Truong proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Remove kwargs validation for identity project updates https://review.opendev.org/715255
16:04:16 openstackgerrit Duc Truong proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Remove kwargs validation for identity project updates https://review.opendev.org/715255
16:04:32 tremble gtema, I just got really confused because I tried to do "dict(my_resource)" and some of the parameters disappears compared to just passing the resource directly to Ansible's "exit_json"
16:05:12 gtema oh yes, this is really fun - was also enjoying it writing some modules
16:09:00 openstackgerrit Mark Chappell proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: New Module: os_keystone_federation_protocol https://review.opendev.org/714991
16:09:01 openstackgerrit Mark Chappell proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: New Module: os_keystone_federation_protocol_info https://review.opendev.org/714992
16:13:14 tremble gtema, On the plus side my integration tests actually caught it :)
16:14:41 gtema ah, there is one more thing to remember - switch on proxy in the cloud layer is not complete, therefore you might have different object types (munch vs resource) for different resources when using cloud layer
16:16:01 openstackgerrit Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add possibility to include URI attributes in the resource dict https://review.opendev.org/715256
16:17:08 gtema I was starting to work on that, but there are everywhere things to clear, so stuck at some point
16:17:18 gtema will try to revive this

Earlier   Later