| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-02-15 | |||
| 22:38:48 | dtroyer | there are at least two agent add/remove reviews in flight, we should sort this before those land | |
| 22:39:03 | ankur-gupta-f4 | yea mine and sshank | |
| 22:40:02 | ankur-gupta-f4 | it would either be a --type <agent_name> or simply a --dhcp --l3-agent. I don't know it would be good to get some input from the others | |
| 22:45:04 | dtroyer | right, one of those formats. I prefer the latter, its usually easier to document | |
| 22:46:12 | ankur-gupta-f4 | yea me too. Do you want to approach subject in meeting or just go ahead with the method of --<agent-name> | |
| 22:50:05 | dtroyer | we have the early meeting tomorrow, I'll bring it up, but I'd say you could go ahead and propose it in the review, having an example is always useful | |
| 22:51:51 | ankur-gupta-f4 | early as in like 5 am PST haha. Its iffy for me | |
| 22:52:51 | dtroyer | it's usually lightly attended :) | |
| 22:52:58 | dtroyer | wait | |
| 22:53:19 | ankur-gupta-f4 | although reedip would attend and we could get his networking background input | |
| 22:54:30 | dtroyer | tomorrow is 19:00 UTC (late) | |
| 22:54:51 | dtroyer | I skipped last week early because I was out there :) | |
| 22:55:07 | dtroyer | and now, time to walk the dogs before it gets dark | |
| 22:55:27 | ankur-gupta-f4 | kk catch u tmw | |
| 22:55:32 | ankur-gupta-f4 | in case i forget just ping me | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-02-16 | |||
| 00:27:13 | openstackgerrit | Sindhu Devale proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: OSC Quota List https://review.openstack.org/379813 | |
| 00:58:02 | sindhu | dtroyer: ping? | |
| 01:43:09 | RuiChen | ping ankur-gupta-f4 | |
| 01:43:51 | ankur-gupta-f4 | Hey Rui | |
| 01:44:19 | ankur-gupta-f4 | Good morning | |
| 01:44:47 | RuiChen | morning : ) | |
| 01:45:04 | RuiChen | you know our patches fix the same bug | |
| 01:45:22 | ankur-gupta-f4 | Yea i posted comment | |
| 01:45:39 | RuiChen | I would like to add Co-Authored-by and abandon one of them | |
| 01:45:59 | ankur-gupta-f4 | Okay. Abandon yours and add co-authored to mine | |
| 01:46:01 | RuiChen | save the core review time | |
| 01:46:14 | ankur-gupta-f4 | I think dean put +2 on it | |
| 01:46:14 | ankur-gupta-f4 | But gate issues | |
| 01:47:08 | RuiChen | ok, I prefer to rebase your patch ob my functional port test patch | |
| 01:47:21 | RuiChen | sorry, s/ob/on/ | |
| 01:49:01 | RuiChen | >> this one https://review.openstack.org/#/c/423970/ | |
| 01:50:05 | ankur-gupta-f4 | It should be the other way. Because the updated functional tests will fail without bug fix | |
| 01:50:30 | ankur-gupta-f4 | Or it should if functional hits bug, which if its a complete functional test it should hit | |
| 01:53:11 | RuiChen | the current functional test don't cover the port set/unset --secuerty-group logic, so it don't catch the bug | |
| 01:54:04 | RuiChen | the related cases should be added in your patch, it's good, I just want to avoid the merge conflict | |
| 01:54:30 | ankur-gupta-f4 | Okay. Fair enough | |
| 01:54:42 | ankur-gupta-f4 | Im good with whichever decision you make | |
| 01:54:55 | ankur-gupta-f4 | As long as it gets done im happy :) | |
| 01:56:50 | RuiChen | thank you :) | |
| 02:55:01 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Reorganize image docs https://review.openstack.org/434539 | |
| 02:56:27 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Reorganize compute docs https://review.openstack.org/434475 | |
| 02:56:32 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Reorganize database docs https://review.openstack.org/434500 | |
| 02:58:07 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Reorganize bare_metal docs https://review.openstack.org/434460 | |
| 02:58:13 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Privatize session instance on Proxy subclasses https://review.openstack.org/434457 | |
| 03:05:10 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Remove unnecessary coding format in the head of files https://review.openstack.org/416500 | |
| 03:15:22 | openstackgerrit | jiahui.qiang proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix can not set is_default in network https://review.openstack.org/434602 | |
| 04:07:25 | RuiChen | anyone face the issue ? I have no idea about it | |
| 04:07:33 | RuiChen | ft1.1: openstackclient.tests.functional.compute.v2.test_server.ServerTests.test_server_attach_detach_floating_ip_StringException: Traceback (most recent call last): | |
| 04:07:33 | RuiChen | File "openstackclient/tests/functional/compute/v2/test_server.py", line 94, in setUp | |
| 04:07:33 | RuiChen | self.server_create(self.NAME) | |
| 04:07:33 | RuiChen | File "openstackclient/tests/functional/compute/v2/test_server.py", line 68, in server_create | |
| 04:07:33 | RuiChen | name + opts) | |
| 04:07:34 | RuiChen | TypeError: coercing to Unicode: need string or buffer, NoneType found | |
| 04:08:23 | RuiChen | in functional tests, block current jenkin jobs gate-osc-dsvm-functional-ubuntu-xenial | |
| 04:21:51 | sindhu | RuiChen: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/383025/ | |
| 04:22:15 | sindhu | RuiChen: yes, even I m getting the same error | |
| 04:50:25 | reedip | o/ | |
| 05:42:18 | openstackgerrit | zhiyong.dai proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix the output of quota show https://review.openstack.org/431366 | |
| 05:43:56 | openstackgerrit | zhiyong.dai proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Support --no-property in "volume set" command https://review.openstack.org/434094 | |
| 05:52:49 | openstackgerrit | jiahui.qiang proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix can not set is_default in network https://review.openstack.org/434602 | |
| 06:00:30 | openstackgerrit | jiahui.qiang proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix can not set is_default in network https://review.openstack.org/434602 | |
| 06:13:37 | RuiChen | sindhu, reedip looks like all patch are blocked by the issue, so we have some workaround tips? | |
| 06:25:47 | reedip | which issue ? | |
| 06:26:17 | reedip | RuiChen : nm | |
| 06:27:32 | reedip | RuiChen, restacking devstack, will look into it as soon as it is up. | |
| 06:29:52 | reedip | RuiChen : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/432993/ ?? | |
| 06:32:04 | RuiChen | reedip: yes, I found the current osc patches face the same issue in job gate-osc-dsvm-functional-ubuntu-xenial | |
| 06:32:17 | RuiChen | TypeError: coercing to Unicode: need string or buffer, NoneType found | |
| 06:32:40 | RuiChen | raise TypeError in setup() of functional tests | |
| 06:33:35 | RuiChen | the same cases pass in my local devstack env | |
| 09:28:26 | openstackgerrit | Huanxuan Ao proposed openstack/osc-lib master: Avoid 'NoneType' error when format conversion https://review.openstack.org/434768 | |
| 10:33:39 | openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add new parameter "is_default" to Network QoS policy. https://review.openstack.org/432260 | |
| 11:18:49 | openstackgerrit | Huanxuan Ao proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Gate broken test https://review.openstack.org/434818 | |
| 13:06:14 | openstackgerrit | Brian Curtin proposed openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Reorganize identity docs https://review.openstack.org/434534 | |
| 14:35:36 | cdent | mordred: thanks for adding your words to the api stability guideline thing. I think we'll get there in the end, but if nothing else it has done a good job of showing what I thought: that there isn't yet a solid consensus. So all in all a good exercise I guess. | |
| 14:35:49 | mordred | cdent: ++ | |
| 14:36:38 | cdent | I was hoping to write a new version today, but I don't think we're there yet | |
| 14:36:56 | mordred | cdent: if I had a billion dollars, I'd buy a large billboard in the bay area and put on it "using semver is not an excuse to break your users" | |
| 14:37:34 | mordred | of course, if I actually had a billion dollars, Id likely stop caring about semver really quickly | |
| 14:37:40 | cdent | I would hope so | |
| 14:38:07 | cdent | I tried to address that concept at the top a bit where I say that if you do use versioning it shouldn't mean that you're removing the old version. | |
| 14:38:10 | dtroyer | mordred: you might be able to pay me to care as your proxy though... | |
| 14:38:14 | cdent | But that's in the "should" side. | |
| 14:39:30 | cdent | yup. dtroyer you're input is eagerly awaited here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/421846/ | |
| 14:39:42 | cdent | oh for heaven's sake | |
| 14:39:43 | cdent | your | |
| 14:50:23 | sdague | cdent: that's looking quite good, it would be nice to move that into merge state | |
| 14:51:36 | sdague | so even mordred's issues don't seem very far from concensus | |
| 14:51:53 | cdent | sdague: Yes, but I'm not willing to do so while there's still some pretty hefty disagreement in the comments. I'm trying to be really agnostic about my own points of view and get the disagreements to a point of at least compromise if not aggreement, without imposing my own view. | |
| 14:52:14 | cdent | I think steve isn't fully on board with everything yet, for example | |
| 14:52:14 | sdague | ok, what do you see as the major disagreements? | |
| 14:53:23 | cdent | a) not a disagreement but something that needs to be cleared up is the unresolved questions section | |
| 14:54:15 | cdent | b) monty's comments about never changing even with a version is an important thing to resolve. it is the heart of the discussion and the main reason why the document now opens with "if you're gonna do this you must version" | |
| 14:54:49 | cdent | c) the role or meaning of discoverability with regard to capability needs to be clarified | |
| 14:55:24 | cdent | d) 5xx to 4xx == okay needs to change to 500 to anything == okay | |
| 14:55:56 | cdent | e) at least one person wants the examples back | |
| 14:56:24 | sdague | so I don't think c) needs to be resolved before this is updated, because that's an active and ongoing discussion | |
| 14:56:45 | sdague | and other things are held up by the asserting that the currently written api guidelines aren't valid any more | |
| 14:56:55 | cdent | sure, but that conversation is happening because we are doing this process | |
| 14:57:15 | cdent | so it would be good to have it play out on a field where it's already happening? | |