| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-02-27 | |||
| 20:43:27 | reedip_1 | sindhu: as per amotoki;'s earlier message on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/383025, cleanup functions are called in the reverse order of their writing | |
| 20:44:04 | reedip_1 | I think Line #234 and #235 should be exchanged in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/383025/48..49/openstackclient/tests/functional/network/v2/test_floating_ip.py | |
| 20:44:22 | reedip_1 | sindhu :can you just check ?? ^^ | |
| 20:44:35 | ankur-gupta-f4 | Wassssss up | |
| 20:44:52 | sindhu | reedip_1: right. I did those changes in the previous patchsets | |
| 20:45:05 | sindhu | reedip_1: but it failed | |
| 20:45:17 | sindhu | reedip_1: will check again | |
| 20:45:24 | reedip_1 | ankur-gupta-f4 : Hey ... Guess I am up :P | |
| 20:45:38 | reedip_1 | Still in EST and IST :| | |
| 20:46:12 | reedip_1 | sindhu : just that logically it should nt , deleting the FLoating IP before Unset didnt seem right to me | |
| 20:46:56 | sindhu | reedip_1: will look into it again, thanks :) | |
| 20:47:03 | ankur-gupta-f4 | reedip_1: jet lag im assuming :) | |
| 20:47:41 | reedip_1 | Dont know what it is ankur-gupta-f4 : Just know that its 2:17 AM and I have comedy central running on the TV and Openstack on mmy laptop ! :P | |
| 20:48:04 | ankur-gupta-f4 | Haha. Its usually Netflix and OpenStack for me | |
| 20:51:29 | reedip_1 | ankur-gupta-f4 : https://youtu.be/44LdLqgOpjo Just in case you thought monkey business is not yet done | |
| 21:01:48 | openstackgerrit | Reedip proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Introduce quota unset command https://review.openstack.org/376311 | |
| 21:15:03 | reedip_1 | sindhu : Hey | |
| 21:15:28 | reedip_1 | The patch failed in the FT :ERROR: InvocationError: '/opt/stack/python-openstackclient/.tox/functional/bin/ostestr openstackclient.tests.functional.network.v2.test_floating_ip.FloatingIpTests.test_floating_ip_set_and_unset_port | |
| 21:16:06 | reedip_1 | stderr: | |
| 21:16:06 | reedip_1 | 'ClientManager' object has no attribute 'sdk_connection' | |
| 21:17:06 | reedip_1 | sindu : http://paste.openstack.org/show/600674/ | |
| 21:18:48 | openstackgerrit | Nakul Dahiwade proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: OSC Network Flavor Profile https://review.openstack.org/396783 | |
| 21:21:58 | sindhu | reedip_1: looking into it :) | |
| 21:45:24 | openstackgerrit | Shashank Kumar Shankar proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Introduce neutron flavor associate, disassociate to OSC https://review.openstack.org/403907 | |
| 21:49:24 | openstackgerrit | Shashank Kumar Shankar proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Introduce neutron flavor associate, disassociate to OSC https://review.openstack.org/403907 | |
| 22:24:44 | openstackgerrit | Nakul Dahiwade proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: OSC Network Flavor Profile https://review.openstack.org/396783 | |
| 23:24:29 | openstackgerrit | Mike Perez proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add backup import/export to OpenStack Client https://review.openstack.org/403393 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-02-28 | |||
| 01:48:22 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Add missing attribute to Subnet resource https://review.openstack.org/438441 | |
| 03:47:05 | openstackgerrit | Jamie Lennox proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: Add an allow_version_hack flag to session and identity plugins. https://review.openstack.org/438788 | |
| 04:07:01 | openstackgerrit | jiahui.qiang proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Functional test for subnet https://review.openstack.org/435914 | |
| 06:32:51 | openstackgerrit | Rui Chen proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add "--private-key" option for "keypair create" https://review.openstack.org/438352 | |
| 07:15:13 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add 'host' and 'force' parameter in cold migration https://review.openstack.org/427565 | |
| 07:15:18 | openstackgerrit | Takashi NATSUME proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add 'host' and 'force' parameter in cold migration https://review.openstack.org/427565 | |
| 08:22:05 | openstackgerrit | Jamie Lennox proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: Add an allow_version_hack flag to session and identity plugins. https://review.openstack.org/438788 | |
| 14:28:35 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Deprecate "wait_for" methods on ProxyBase https://review.openstack.org/434381 | |
| 14:28:50 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Implement metric docs https://review.openstack.org/435110 | |
| 14:31:22 | openstackgerrit | Jens Rosenboom proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix handling the use_default_subnet_pool attribute https://review.openstack.org/438514 | |
| 14:31:45 | briancurtin | stevemar: i’m about to do an SDK release, wasn't there some kind of test you kick off before i do that? | |
| 14:59:04 | openstackgerrit | Brian Curtin proposed openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Reorganize block store docs https://review.openstack.org/438993 | |
| 15:32:35 | openstackgerrit | Brian Curtin proposed openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Reorganize telemetry docs https://review.openstack.org/439020 | |
| 15:36:04 | reedip | sindhu : hey | |
| 15:36:23 | sindhu | reedip: hey | |
| 15:36:41 | reedip | sindhu : any clue what is happening with the floating ip set CLI ? | |
| 15:36:59 | reedip | sindhu : I think we are stuck somewhere, isnt it? | |
| 15:36:59 | sindhu | reedip: working on it now | |
| 15:37:08 | sindhu | reedip: will upload a patch soon | |
| 15:37:35 | reedip | sindhu : one question . Do we need the sdk_session in Line 579 of openstack/network/v2/floating_ip.py ? | |
| 15:38:10 | sindhu | reedip: yes | |
| 15:38:17 | reedip | sindhu : y? | |
| 15:39:26 | sindhu | reedip: coz, find_floating_ip function needs session to be passed | |
| 15:39:58 | reedip | sindhu : thats what I am wondering. Why do we need a separate session when we are not using the same behavior for , say , a port or a network | |
| 15:40:19 | reedip | sindhu : is there something different implemented on the SDK for this ? | |
| 15:40:54 | reedip | I searched the whole OSC but couldnt find the sdk_session anywhere else except the patch in progress ( please correct me if I am wrong ) sindhu | |
| 15:41:42 | sindhu | reedip: find_floating_ip function is not defined in sdk, it's a local function in the file, at L85 | |
| 15:43:05 | reedip | sindhu : sorry , the jet lag and other stuff are messing up my brain :P | |
| 15:43:30 | reedip | sindhu : lemme check it again, because I dont think we need to use the sdk_Session per se ... | |
| 15:44:59 | sindhu | reedip: haha, no problem :) sure, the find_ip defined in the sdk does the search based on only name or id of floating_ip | |
| 15:45:18 | reedip | sindhu : ok ... | |
| 15:45:39 | reedip | floatin_ip doesnt have a name , so I guess we are searching based on IP or ID | |
| 15:46:22 | openstackgerrit | Brian Curtin proposed openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Reorganize workflow docs https://review.openstack.org/439028 | |
| 15:46:55 | sindhu | reedip: https://github.com/openstack/python-openstacksdk/blob/master/openstack/network/v2/_proxy.py#L513, but the find_floating_ip defined in the openstackclient/network/v2/floating_ip is capable of doing the search based on IP as well. If I understand correctly | |
| 15:47:57 | reedip | sindhu : the _proxy file does the job smoothly on the SDK side | |
| 15:54:21 | sindhu | reedip: let me know if u think there is something wrong | |
| 15:54:47 | reedip | sindhu : I will, in some time though | |
| 15:54:57 | sindhu | reedip: sure | |
| 15:55:03 | reedip | if there is something wrong . but I doubt there is something | |
| 16:15:47 | openstackgerrit | Sindhu Devale proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: "floating ip set/unset port" for OSC https://review.openstack.org/383025 | |
| 16:21:47 | dtroyer | briancurtin: got a question on how SDK handles resource attribute updates. Specifically I am looking at port security_groups, and find that adding one fails in this case: a) port has at least one existing security group; b) add a new security group ID at the end of the list of existing groups. No PUT is executed. If I add the new ID to the beginning of the list the PUT is sent. | |
| 16:22:08 | dtroyer | I've started looking for where this update detection happens in SDK and have not traced it down yet... | |
| 16:23:02 | reedip | dtroyer : really ???? | |
| 16:23:35 | reedip | dtroyer : so you are appending the data ? | |
| 16:23:53 | dtroyer | yes, appending new ID to the list fo exsting IDs | |
| 16:25:18 | reedip | dtroyer : ohk, lemme try the same ... | |
| 16:28:08 | openstackgerrit | Dean Troyer proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Simplify logic around option lists in port set https://review.openstack.org/439048 | |
| 16:28:44 | dtroyer | reedip: ^^^^ is what I am doing. | |
| 16:28:54 | briancurtin | dtroyer: looking | |
| 16:29:01 | reedip | dtroyer: yeah saw that and reviewing the same | |
| 16:29:06 | dtroyer | we've gotten a bit complicated in option handling and its hard to follow | |
| 16:30:23 | briancurtin | dtroyer: ah, i’ll have to look up my special methods again, but i bet it’s that we’re not catching the += in setting the dirty. we currently set it based on __setitem__ | |
| 16:30:47 | dtroyer | ah, ok. .append() then maybe? | |
| 16:32:41 | briancurtin | what you’re doing should work (fixing and releasing that in a coordinated way is another matter)—what should work no matter what would be to get the value, do the append (or even a += to a local value), and then do the fixed_ips=my_new_thing instead of doing it in-place | |
| 16:33:37 | reedip | dtroyer : Line #740 in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/439048/1/openstackclient/network/v2/port.py | |
| 16:33:50 | dtroyer | ok, that may be cleaner anyway too. I'm re-doing this because I couldn't follow the logic without a lot of caffiene… :) | |
| 16:33:54 | briancurtin | i think that’s what we’re missing. the value itself is being appended to fine, but it’s not flagging the dirty setting because the in-place operation (i think, looking up something right now) | |
| 16:34:26 | dtroyer | I think that is what I see too briancurtin, I finally found _ComponentManager :) | |
| 16:39:15 | reedip | dtroyer : One thing I cannot understand is why the attrs object is not able to update the info on the neutron server side | |
| 16:40:25 | dtroyer | reedip: SDK Resource tracks attributes that have been changed (dirty) and only sends back the ones actually changed for update(). Setting the dirty flag is not happening in some cases | |
| 16:42:42 | reedip | dtroyer : I remember having this discussion with stevemar , I guess | |
| 16:43:20 | reedip | but cant see why the dirty flag isnt set ( being the original writer of this patch, I would need the feedback for future reference :) ) | |
| 16:46:03 | dtroyer | reedip: briancurtin thought it might be because using += modifies the attribute in place and doens't pass through __setitem__(), which is where the dirty flag is set. | |
| 16:46:16 | dtroyer | Without tracing it I think I agree | |
| 16:47:02 | reedip | dtroyer : so , we shouldnt use += in Set attributes ( sounds like a doc update :P ) | |
| 16:47:08 | dtroyer | I'm trying to make the handling of these arguments clearer, it took me a while to understand what was happening before | |
| 16:47:08 | reedip | ?? | |
| 16:47:20 | dtroyer | maybe not in this case, no | |
| 16:47:35 | reedip | dtroyer : so this is a case by case basis ? | |
| 16:47:44 | dtroyer | at least when operating on an attribute obtained from an SDK object | |
| 16:48:20 | dtroyer | I think that is the distinction; if we used a copy of an object attribute it might have worked | |
| 16:53:39 | reedip | dtroyer : ok ... | |
| 16:54:50 | dtroyer | hmmmm, of the 3 options pairs I am looking at, security groups was the only one to not iterate over the existing list | |