| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2022-09-08 | |||
| 18:14:51 | jm1 | gtema: is it safe to release the zed version of python-openstackclient with openstacksdk 0.61.0? | |
| 18:15:15 | opendevreview | Emma Foley proposed openstack/openstacksdk stable/yoga: Fix incremental backups handling in project cleanup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/856509 | |
| 18:15:17 | gtema | Yes | |
| 18:15:32 | jm1 | gtema: do we have other openstack code except python-openstackclient and ansible openstack collection which uses openstacksdk? | |
| 18:16:41 | gtema | Zuul (nodepool), but it is now pinned, nova (inside) | |
| 18:16:49 | gtema | And maybe some other projects | |
| 18:39:31 | jm1 | gtema: wait, nova is using openstacksdk? will we break nova when releasing zed version of nova with openstacksdk 0.61.0? | |
| 18:40:50 | gtema | Do you want to make proper release of 61 into Zed? I thought you ask about some particular usecase | |
| 18:43:07 | jm1 | gtema: we pinned openstacksdk to 0.61.0 in rdo c9 master (openstack distribution for centos 9) and aoc to 1.8.0 because we have not finished porting aoc to sdk 0.99.0. we are wondering whether this would break any openstack component | |
| 18:45:33 | jm1 | stephenfin: ^ fyi | |
| 18:45:43 | gtema | Generally I thing it should not break, since we always said we are backwards compatible. We even want to get rid of release branches as such. But whether such step may influence nova I can't say. In 61 there were no critical changes, so chances are low. | |
| 18:46:16 | gtema | From code it is hard to say confidently | |
| 18:47:46 | jm1 | gtema: sdk 0.99.0 broke backward compatibility, so when openstack components begin to depent on changes from sdk 0.99.0+, then they could break when used with sdk<0.99.0 (e.g. 0.61.0). | |
| 18:49:07 | jm1 | gtema: until know our rdo/tripleo ci jobs seem to work fine with sdk 0.61.0, aoc 1.8.0 and latest zed code for all openstack components. but this might be simply because we do not have 100% code coverage? | |
| 18:49:17 | gtema | I heavily doubt anybody else was ever relying on cloud layer, since it doesn't support micro versions properly | |
| 18:49:39 | gtema | Well, now it does | |
| 18:50:01 | gtema | But because of that I doubt nova ever wanted to use cloud layer | |
| 18:50:34 | gtema | Hard to say without seeing real usage | |
| 18:56:49 | jm1 | gtema: hmm.. searching on opendev reveals several uses of openstacksdk, not only in nova, so in theory we would have to check that code as well https://codesearch.opendev.org/?q=import%20openstack | |
| 18:57:48 | jm1 | gtema: unpinning openstacksdk and aoc would definitely cause some breakage, e.g. we will have to port tripleo-ansible etc. to new aoc and sdk | |
| 18:58:24 | gtema | Uuuu, so much usage. That's cool | |
| 18:58:44 | jm1 | gtema: yes and no... | |
| 18:59:05 | jm1 | gtema: sdk 0.99.0 in zed is really causing us a headache.. | |
| 19:00:08 | gtema | Tja, I guess you can really try it out in rdo | |
| 19:03:22 | jm1 | gtema: we have quite a bit of ci coverage for tripleo deployments and since they are passing i guess pinning is not a huge issue for now | |
| 19:03:45 | gtema | Yupp | |
| 19:04:19 | jm1 | gtema: anyway, thanks for your take on this. good to see that openstacksdk is actually used more than we thought :) | |
| 19:04:53 | jm1 | gtema: with that search i found another interesting thing: https://opendev.org/openstack/metalsmith/src/commit/cc8fe24d40e64e874bc3d4308cd76e50379729d3/metalsmith_ansible/ansible_plugins/modules/metalsmith_instances.py#L22 | |
| 19:04:55 | gtema | Yeah, right. it's a positive surprise for me as well | |
| 19:05:57 | gtema | 😌 | |
| 19:12:20 | jm1 | gtema: so from skimming through the results it looks like openstacksdk is used in ironic (and related repos), tripleo-ansible, aoc, bifrost, tripleo-heat-templates, zuul nodepool, zuul-registry, networking-baremetal, neutron, openstack-virtual-baremetal | |
| 19:13:39 | jm1 | .., various tripleo related repos and other probably less rdo relevant repos. | |
| 19:14:23 | jm1 | any volunteers to check whether a pinning of openstacksdk affects the zed releases of those repos? | |
| 19:14:30 | jm1 | ;) | |
| 19:24:53 | jm1 | gtema: for nova i cannot see how they use openstacksdk | |
| 19:25:47 | jm1 | gtema: oh.. now i see | |
| 19:26:15 | gtema | Jm1, me neither. It seems to be deep as adapter | |
| 19:29:36 | jm1 | gtema: oh with "from openstack import" i found a couple of more usages: heat, metalsmith, nova, octavia-dashboard, ... | |
| 19:30:37 | jm1 | gtema: lets hope they do not use cloud layer.. | |
| 19:31:25 | gtema | ;-) | |
| 19:31:54 | jm1 | gtema: not to be solved today. /me out for today, have a nice evening! | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2022-09-09 | |||
| 05:40:10 | opendevreview | Shnaidman Sagi (Sergey) proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Use Python 3.10 for Ansible's devel branch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/852526 | |
| 07:25:05 | opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add address-scope to NDP proxy tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/856521 | |
| 09:27:34 | opendevreview | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/os-service-types master: Add venus service-type https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-service-types/+/856384 | |
| 09:29:24 | opendevreview | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/os-service-types master: Add venus service-type https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-service-types/+/856384 | |
| 09:54:11 | frickler | gtema: 856521 is needed to unblock OSC gate, not sure if you'd still want to wait for haleyb to re-review | |
| 09:54:23 | gtema | yeah, will do in few minutes | |
| 10:05:43 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: Unify resource list filtering https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/853052 | |
| 11:21:04 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/cliff stable/zed: Update .gitreview for stable/zed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cliff/+/856725 | |
| 11:21:06 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/cliff stable/zed: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/zed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cliff/+/856726 | |
| 11:21:07 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/cliff master: Add Python3 antelope unit tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cliff/+/856727 | |
| 11:21:22 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/openstacksdk stable/zed: Update .gitreview for stable/zed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/856728 | |
| 11:21:24 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/openstacksdk stable/zed: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/zed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/856729 | |
| 11:21:25 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Update master for stable/zed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/856730 | |
| 11:21:27 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add Python3 antelope unit tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/856731 | |
| 11:21:36 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/osc-lib stable/zed: Update .gitreview for stable/zed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-lib/+/856732 | |
| 11:21:37 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/osc-lib stable/zed: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/zed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-lib/+/856733 | |
| 11:21:39 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/osc-lib master: Update master for stable/zed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-lib/+/856734 | |
| 11:21:40 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/osc-lib master: Add Python3 antelope unit tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-lib/+/856735 | |
| 11:24:13 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: volume: Trivial docstring fixes to 'wait_for_status' https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/822315 | |
| 11:24:15 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add address-scope to NDP proxy tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/856521 | |
| 11:35:03 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/os-service-types master: Update api_ref for Cyborg project https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-service-types/+/856373 | |
| 14:14:35 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: Implement project cleanup for object-store https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/853015 | |
| 14:42:00 | gtema | stephenfin frickler: did you ever completely understood all the different networking models in openstack? When I see some comments in the SDK code (for networks handling) my hairs are raising up. This is code is not manageable | |
| 14:42:39 | stephenfin | gtema: I leave networking to other people with more time than me 😇 It's madness | |
| 14:43:21 | gtema | just read that: https://opendev.org/openstack/openstacksdk/src/branch/master/openstack/cloud/meta.py#L160 | |
| 14:44:51 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/cliff stable/zed: Update .gitreview for stable/zed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cliff/+/856725 | |
| 14:45:34 | stephenfin | gtema: Like I said, madness :) | |
| 14:46:21 | gtema | yeah, but we need to manage it somehow. ansible guys are now struggling that their improved tests are failing under certain conditions. No surprise with logic like that | |
| 14:46:56 | gtema | and I wanted to streamline this for R1.0 also. But don't even have idea from which side to touch it - insane | |
| 14:47:27 | gtema | that also proves to me why InterOp as such does not work (and will never work) | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2022-09-11 | |||
| 00:43:44 | opendevreview | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/os-service-types master: Add venus service-type https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-service-types/+/856384 | |
| 09:59:23 | frickler | stephenfin: gtema: after digging a bit, it seems that ^^ as well as the earlier change for cyborg are wrong, instead https://opendev.org/openstack/service-types-authority/src/branch/master/service-types.yaml needs to be patched. then a bot should do the other update including the sha and timestamp bump | |
| 10:02:28 | gtema | Service-types-authority, cool, another new repo. For me it conflicts with os-service-types repo | |
| 10:47:19 | frickler | seems the latter is meant to be the python-consumable copy of data in the former. not sure why one couldn't do that in a single repo. I can't remember ever having seen this setup before, either | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2022-09-12 | |||
| 06:24:50 | opendevreview | Shnaidman Sagi (Sergey) proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Run Ansible devel branch job on Python 3.10 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/856987 | |
| 08:39:03 | opendevreview | Ulrich Schwickerath proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Added "openstack image metadefs namespace list" command https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/854557 | |
| 11:30:22 | opendevreview | Kristian Kucerak proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Change subnets_info modules to work with new SDK https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/857041 | |
| 12:25:28 | opendevreview | Polina Gubina proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: add missing function to identity resource https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/857045 | |
| 12:29:48 | opendevreview | Takashi Natsume proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix wrong assertion methods https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/857046 | |
| 12:48:02 | opendevreview | Ananya proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Makes stack module compatible with new sdk version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/848266 | |
| 13:21:15 | opendevreview | Polina Gubina proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: fixes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/857159 | |
| 13:26:28 | opendevreview | Polina Gubina proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: add missing function to identity resource https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/857045 | |
| 14:00:59 | dtantsur | folks, looking for a 2nd +2 on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/849564 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/849402 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/856549 please | |
| 14:01:06 | dtantsur | I think it's important for 1.0 and for the collections | |
| 14:26:23 | opendevreview | Kristian Kucerak proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Change subnets_info module to work with new SDK https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/857041 | |
| 15:14:34 | opendevreview | Eunyoung Kim proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add metadef schema resource to v2 metadefs api https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/857200 | |
| 15:23:11 | opendevreview | Eunyoung Kim proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add metadef schema resource to v2 metadefs api https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/857200 | |
| 15:33:33 | gmann | gtema: reminder for PTL planning for 2023.1 cycle, I have added sdks in the leaderless project list https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2023.1-leaderless | |
| 15:33:56 | gmann | gtema: please let us know if you are planning to continue or anyone else volunteering ? | |
| 16:04:53 | frickler | gmann: I thought that that was settled with https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/856526 | |
| 16:06:41 | gmann | frickler: ohk, I think there is wrong data in election email. where barbican and OpenStackSDK are also listed. thanks. noted in etherpad | |
| 17:49:46 | gtema | Gmann, yeah, I ruled this with Amy directly | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2022-09-13 | |||
| 06:39:43 | opendevreview | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/service-types-authority master: Add Venus as log-management service https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/service-types-authority/+/857080 | |
| 06:47:54 | frickler | dtantsur: ^^ seems you might be the only remaining active api-sig-core. is that group still active anyway? | |
| 06:50:13 | frickler | seems nobody touched the jobs in a long time, I will look into fixing those later today | |
| 07:08:09 | gtema | frickler: do you mean service-types-authority? BTW, do you know which team is responsible for the project? I see irc is mapped into the sdk room, but it is not official delivery of our team | |
| 07:09:57 | gtema | ah, and in gerrit it group is related somehow to api-sig-core | |
| 07:11:01 | gtema | right: api-sig is not active anymore, we had last meeting more then a year ago. iirc it was agreed to stay in standby until required, since anyway all the docs were already written | |
| 07:11:20 | frickler | yes, api-sig is what I came up with, too | |