| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2020-11-03 | |||
| 05:47:16 | openstackgerrit | zhufl proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Fix invalid assertIsNotNone statement https://review.opendev.org/761053 | |
| 05:59:51 | openstackgerrit | wu.shiming proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE https://review.opendev.org/761055 | |
| 09:41:56 | nightmare_unreal | Thanks . Hopefully it's correct this time | |
| 09:41:56 | nightmare_unreal | brinzhang_: stephenfin can you review the code : https://review.opendev.org/#/c/741181/ | |
| 09:50:14 | brinzhang_ | nightmare_unreal: ack, added in my list | |
| 09:50:32 | nightmare_unreal | thanks | |
| 10:07:14 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix formatting of the flavor properties https://review.opendev.org/760906 | |
| 10:11:40 | dtantsur | hey folks! we're working on ansible 2.10 support in bifrost, does this ring any bells: | |
| 10:11:42 | dtantsur | https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/6302f5b438e24bfd95b14c25fccb11d0/log/job-output.txt#673 | |
| 10:11:47 | dtantsur | sshnaidm|rover: ^^? | |
| 10:11:57 | dtantsur | the same code used to work a few days ago | |
| 10:12:50 | gtema | maybe https://review.opendev.org/#/c/746883/? | |
| 10:13:15 | dtantsur | have we released that& | |
| 10:13:17 | dtantsur | ? | |
| 10:13:47 | gtema | I guess not | |
| 10:13:57 | gtema | it's merged, but not released in galaxy | |
| 10:14:34 | sshnaidm|rover | right, not released | |
| 10:14:35 | dtantsur | we're using galaxy, so it's not it | |
| 10:14:52 | dtantsur | https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/e05c62547b3d547ffb433d1cf66e82b353f24262/lib/ansible/utils/collection_loader/_collection_finder.py#L398 is not new at all, I wonder why we only hit it now | |
| 10:15:21 | sshnaidm|rover | dtantsur, I think I got these errors while using old ansible-lint | |
| 10:15:27 | sshnaidm|rover | looks very familair | |
| 10:15:38 | dtantsur | mmm, that's a hint! it's the linter job that fails | |
| 10:15:47 | dtantsur | how old was that, do you recall? | |
| 10:16:31 | dtantsur | I think we're using the latest one though.. | |
| 10:16:48 | sshnaidm|rover | dtantsur, https://review.opendev.org/#/c/753760/ | |
| 10:16:58 | sshnaidm|rover | seems like related to py3.8 | |
| 10:17:17 | dtantsur | sweet | |
| 10:19:08 | sshnaidm|rover | and this https://review.opendev.org/#/c/754074/ | |
| 10:19:19 | sshnaidm|rover | moved to bionic since it doesn't have 3.8 as default | |
| 10:19:37 | dtantsur | avoiding 2.10 is an option, but we cannot do it forever | |
| 10:19:44 | dtantsur | (especially since the actual code works) | |
| 10:20:58 | sshnaidm|rover | dtantsur, where is your ansible-lint config? | |
| 10:21:51 | dtantsur | sshnaidm|rover: not much interesting there https://opendev.org/openstack/bifrost/src/branch/master/.ansible-lint | |
| 10:24:34 | sshnaidm|rover | still 1.0.0? https://opendev.org/openstack/bifrost/src/branch/master/ansible-collections-requirements.yml | |
| 10:25:05 | dtantsur | sshnaidm|rover: is it a hard cap or a lower cap? | |
| 10:25:20 | sshnaidm|rover | I think hard | |
| 10:25:37 | sshnaidm|rover | dtantsur, just for an experiment, I'd try to run it on ubuntu-bionic | |
| 10:25:47 | sshnaidm|rover | to know if it's py3.8 issue | |
| 10:26:34 | sshnaidm|rover | but most probably not.. | |
| 10:26:36 | dtantsur | I can change basepython locally | |
| 10:26:55 | dtantsur | (I see it on my fedora just as well, but it also uses 3.8 | |
| 10:28:07 | dtantsur | fails with 3.6 just as well | |
| 10:30:30 | sshnaidm|rover | dtantsur, where do you install collection in the job? | |
| 10:30:47 | dtantsur | okay, I think I got it. lemme show you in a minute | |
| 10:34:22 | dtantsur | sshnaidm|rover: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/760127/5/tools/ansible-lint.sh | |
| 10:35:51 | sshnaidm|rover | dtantsur, oh, so it didn't find collection | |
| 10:36:23 | dtantsur | sshnaidm|rover: it DID find the collection, that's the problem | |
| 10:36:39 | dtantsur | it found it via some implicit logic and choked on it | |
| 10:37:44 | openstackgerrit | Cédric Jeanneret (Tengu) proposed openstack/keystoneauth stable/train: Cleanup session on delete https://review.opendev.org/760911 | |
| 10:38:44 | sshnaidm|rover | tbh hard to understand where it's installed.. why not to build from ~/src/openstack/openstack-ansible-collections or whatever it is | |
| 10:39:02 | sshnaidm|rover | that way you can use the newest from repo, not 1.0.0 release.. | |
| 10:40:36 | dtantsur | sshnaidm|rover: you mean, install it from source? maybe that's what we should do, dunno | |
| 10:40:45 | sshnaidm|rover | dtantsur, yep | |
| 10:40:46 | dtantsur | (the linters job always uses a pre-created source installation) | |
| 11:03:51 | stephenfin | gtema: Any chance you could stick https://review.opendev.org/#/c/757874/ on your review queue, please? :) | |
| 11:04:32 | gtema | yes. BTW you make me disappointed in my changes ;-) | |
| 11:05:34 | stephenfin | gtema: Ha, sorry. I hope I wasn't too harsh /o\ Let me know if you disagree with anything, of course | |
| 11:05:42 | gtema | no problem | |
| 11:05:51 | stephenfin | (The main problem was the performance issue of the fetch-update proxy calls, btw. The rest were nits and could be ignored) | |
| 11:05:59 | gtema | btw, regarding your comment on delete_flavor_extra_specs_property calling get_Flavor 2 times | |
| 11:06:09 | gtema | are you sure? Cause it actually should not be the case | |
| 11:06:42 | stephenfin | I'm not sure, no. I was just reading the the openstacksdk code and it seemed like it would do a fetch each time | |
| 11:06:49 | stephenfin | Perhaps I'm misreading it? | |
| 11:06:53 | gtema | nope, it should not | |
| 11:07:17 | gtema | https://opendev.org/openstack/openstacksdk/src/branch/master/openstack/proxy.py#L305 | |
| 11:07:48 | gtema | this is the get_resource, which is in the end being invoked to decide what we pass to it: id or instance of the object. | |
| 11:07:58 | gtema | in reality it doesn't invoke the fetch again | |
| 11:08:54 | stephenfin | You're calling it with flavor.id though | |
| 11:09:09 | gtema | yes, and it is enough for it | |
| 11:09:15 | stephenfin | which means you trigger this path, I think? https://opendev.org/openstack/openstacksdk/src/branch/master/openstack/proxy.py#L327-L331 | |
| 11:09:44 | stephenfin | though i didn't check if that actually fetches things | |
| 11:09:45 | gtema | if I pass complete object it has no advantage, but disadvantage of passing more data to other function (especially ugly in tests) | |
| 11:10:14 | gtema | even here no request is being send | |
| 11:10:41 | stephenfin | oh, okay, I wasn't expecting that | |
| 11:11:09 | gtema | without commit this is not doing anything | |
| 11:11:13 | gtema | no problem with that | |
| 11:11:14 | stephenfin | in that case, ignore that comment :) sorry for the confusion | |
| 11:11:24 | gtema | no problem | |
| 11:12:27 | gtema | I am actually since perhaps a year confused on pretty much that issue - passing more than require is not good (especially for huge objects), but passing less cause some extra functions | |
| 11:13:16 | stephenfin | yeah, the Resource model and general lazy loading concept it uses does take a bit of time to wrap your head around | |
| 11:13:34 | gtema | yes, it's woodoo | |
| 11:31:06 | dulek | Hi! We're using openstacksdk as our main tool to connect to OpenStack APIs. When there's high load we start too see "urllib3.connectionpool [-] Connection pool is full, discarding connection" warnings. | |
| 11:31:46 | dulek | While it seems those are harmless, is there a way to increase pool size? How deep should I look? | |
| 11:32:00 | gtema | dulek, what exactly are you doing? | |
| 11:32:41 | dulek | gtema: A ton of calls to Neutron and Octavia. Kuryr is reacting to events in K8s, so the number of events being handled might be massive. | |
| 11:33:12 | gtema | hmm, not that I am aware of any explicit connection pools we have | |
| 11:33:51 | gtema | could be it is coming from keystonauth | |
| 11:34:26 | dulek | gtema: Yeah, or even from requests. Okay, I'll try to dig deeper. | |
| 11:34:54 | gtema | I hope there might be some logs pointing where it is really coming from | |
| 11:39:52 | gtema | dulek - I haven't found any reference in SDK/Keystone for using connectionpools at all | |
| 11:40:13 | dulek | gtema: There's this: https://github.com/openstack/keystoneauth/blob/1f0412a042103009c5a95230e058d08e5bd91fa1/keystoneauth1/session.py#L1423 | |
| 11:40:15 | gtema | seems you might then face the defaults | |
| 11:40:40 | dulek | Yup! | |
| 11:40:42 | gtema | aah, from adapters | |
| 11:45:56 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add "fields" parameter to ListPort query https://review.opendev.org/754117 | |
| 11:46:14 | dulek | It doesn't seem trivial to pass bigger pool there. | |
| 12:10:51 | openstackgerrit | Cédric Jeanneret (Tengu) proposed openstack/keystoneauth stable/train: Cleanup session on delete https://review.opendev.org/760911 | |
| 12:21:46 | openstackgerrit | Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Switch flavor ops in the cloud layer to proxy https://review.opendev.org/761124 | |
| 12:58:50 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add 'openstack server migration list --type' option https://review.opendev.org/757874 | |
| 13:32:54 | openstackgerrit | Hervé Beraud proposed openstack/microversion-parse master: Use Python 3.8 as the default runtime for tox https://review.opendev.org/761145 | |