| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-05-17 | |||
| 16:56:18 | dtantsur | oh, I"m going to miss an epic battle :) | |
| 16:57:07 | edleafe | Will we all have little flags to show our allegiances? | |
| 16:57:27 | mugsie | that is a great idea :) | |
| 17:00:04 | dtantsur | I have love-hate relationships with microversions | |
| 17:08:32 | cdent | I have no idea what flag to fly. | |
| 17:22:44 | elmiko | cdent edleafe, ok, i'm good for wednesday too now =) | |
| 17:23:20 | cdent | like I said: | |
| 17:23:50 | elmiko | hahaha | |
| 17:25:13 | edleafe | how does that even work? | |
| 17:25:26 | edleafe | I change a flight, and it's several hundred $$ | |
| 17:25:50 | elmiko | they let me change for free, maybe status on delta? | |
| 17:32:29 | cdent | didn't you buy your flight late? In which case it would be changeable anyway? | |
| 17:32:44 | elmiko | good point, i was still in some sort of grace period | |
| 18:16:50 | mordred | dtantsur|afk: I'm all for bumping min microversions - I'm just arguing that doing so already has a name and a well-understood and supported system. it's called "bumping the major version" and we support it everywhere with no additional effort :) | |
| 18:53:46 | elmiko | mordred: i'm kinda curious about the effects on maintenance of keeping around old versions, like what if a team wants to move away from keeping the old code (assuming there is some rational reasoning behind it) | |
| 18:54:36 | elmiko | or am i misunderstanding this issue? | |
| 19:01:06 | cdent | elmiko: that's one of the main points of this discussion: making it possible to drop old versions | |
| 19:01:25 | cdent | but doing it in concert | |
| 19:05:09 | elmiko | yeah | |
| 19:05:30 | elmiko | i just really appreciate mordred's take on the idea of bump max keep min, i'm curious to hear more about his thoughts | |
| 19:05:44 | elmiko | i'm also trying to confirm that i understood this XD | |
| 19:06:32 | elmiko | from a compatability standpoint i totally get it, i'm just concerned about the developer response to keeping old stuff | |
| 21:06:52 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/keystoneauth master: Collect timing information for API calls https://review.openstack.org/568877 | |
| 21:06:53 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/keystoneauth master: Add oslo.config option for split-loggers https://review.openstack.org/568878 | |
| 21:06:55 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/keystoneauth master: Expose version_between as a real function https://review.openstack.org/568640 | |
| 22:39:14 | dmsimard|off | mordred, Shrews: does that ring you a bell ? http://paste.openstack.org/show/721195/ | |
| 22:39:29 | dmsimard|off | when trying to use the openstack dynamic inventory | |
| 22:39:39 | dmsimard|off | fresh install, afaict shade, os_client_config are installed etc | |
| 22:41:10 | dmsimard|off | looks like https://github.com/openstack/os-client-config/commit/5c2eae8f8242332aff59d18b45a7d17f01524aaa | |
| 23:28:23 | openstackgerrit | Alexander D. proposed openstack/os-client-config master: fix saltstack breakage introduced in v1.31.0 https://review.openstack.org/569291 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2018-05-18 | |||
| 02:06:40 | openstackgerrit | Chen proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Compute: Add description support for server https://review.openstack.org/568549 | |
| 02:12:59 | openstackgerrit | Chen proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Compute: Add description support for server https://review.openstack.org/568549 | |
| 02:31:48 | openstackgerrit | Chen proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Compute: Add description support for server Part 1 https://review.openstack.org/568549 | |
| 09:21:29 | dtantsur | mordred: well, I'd argue with the "no additional effort" bit.. at least for me as rust-openstack developer supporting major versions is a bit of a pain | |
| 10:12:24 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: baremetal: refuse to inspect associated machines https://review.openstack.org/569375 | |
| 11:00:35 | openstackgerrit | Chen proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Compute: Add description support for server Part 2 https://review.openstack.org/569385 | |
| 11:00:37 | openstackgerrit | tianhui proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Compute: Add tags support for server https://review.openstack.org/569386 | |
| 11:15:12 | frickler | dmsimard|off: do you use the default contrib/inventory/openstack.py from the ansible repo or do you have a modified version? I had a similar issue with the former that was resolved in https://github.com/openstack/os-client-config/commit/e65033910714d6f7d198d8eff6997fdaec102474 | |
| 11:57:49 | mordred | dtantsur: that's fair. I guess what I should have said is that since major versions already exist, clients that want to support the existing openstack installations have to have major version discovery / handling code today anyway - and we have documentation about how to handle all of the cases of it | |
| 11:58:36 | mordred | dmsimard|off, frickler: I think in this case it's an issue with executing the openstack dynamic inventory from a directory containing the inventory with the inventory script still named 'openstack.py' | |
| 11:58:54 | mordred | since it causes os-client-config's import of 'openstack.config' to fail by finding the inventory script as "openstack" instead | |
| 11:59:22 | mordred | dmsimard|off, frickler the solutions for now are either to rename the inventory script before running it, or to switch to the new inventory plugin | |
| 12:11:14 | dmsimard|off | mordred: oh yeah that makes sense | |
| 12:11:31 | dmsimard|off | mordred: I've had something similar happen with a json.py file at some point.. | |
| 12:11:32 | frickler | mordred: hah, good catch, that explains why I couldn't reproduce this. mine is called 10-openstack.py for $reasons | |
| 12:12:21 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Update command test for volume.v3 https://review.openstack.org/569398 | |
| 12:12:58 | mordred | dmsimard|off, frickler: I think it just goes to show that the new inventory plugin feature is a much better idea than the old inventory script model :) | |
| 12:14:36 | mordred | dtroyer, dhellmann, amotoki: ^^ the above osc patch is needed to fix osc gate jobs now that the cinder-v3-by-default patch landed | |
| 12:15:38 | mordred | dtroyer, dhellmann, amotoki: I'd love it if y'all could land it - that job not working also breaks occ's gate, and we just got a patch from a saltstack person fixing a regression they're having in production that I'd love to get landed and out the door | |
| 12:15:54 | amotoki | mordred: looking | |
| 12:16:00 | mordred | amotoki: thanks | |
| 12:23:25 | dtantsur | jroll: good catch re unit testing! I suspect that for some reason the test is not running at all... | |
| 12:23:42 | jroll | dtantsur: yeah, it's strange :) | |
| 12:24:08 | dtantsur | SKIPPED: Ironic operations not supported yet | |
| 12:24:21 | dtantsur | yay, mordred is it expected for all ironic unit tests to be skipped with ^^^? | |
| 12:24:24 | jroll | O_o | |
| 12:26:59 | jroll | mordred: totally agree that bumping the major version is the right thing to do - though seems like lots of effort to drop e.g. 1.11 and below, when the max is 1.48. 1.12 would become 2.1, 1.13, would become 2.2, etc, besides the code work it feels like lots of mental/docs overhead | |
| 12:29:45 | mordred | jroll: yes, I agree - I was actually thinking cut the new major at the latest max of the current - and keep the old major around for at least the normal deprecation cycle to give people a chance to catch up - so instead of cutting a v2 at 1.11 - just go ahead and cut a new major at 1.48 - but it's possible that's a bad idea for other reasons I haven't realized yet | |
| 12:30:23 | jroll | mordred: yeah, it just feels heavy | |
| 12:30:31 | jroll | most of this is about getting rid of bad apis or tech debt, right | |
| 12:30:50 | mordred | well - except that getting rid of bad apis is an illusion | |
| 12:31:02 | jroll | so either you do that in small pieces (and have many major versions in the end), or you have to do it all at once to keep it in a single major version bump | |
| 12:31:40 | jroll | ok, ignore "bad apis" for now, we can discuss that bit later :) | |
| 12:31:47 | mordred | I think it should be more about making progress towards a place where the 'default' api people see is nicer than it is about removing things | |
| 12:32:26 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: baremetal: refuse to inspect associated machines https://review.openstack.org/569375 | |
| 12:32:38 | mordred | the reason I've come to like microversions so much is that I can completely and totally ignore them - and for the most part that's what I do | |
| 12:33:23 | mordred | the problem I have with bumping a min is that it makes caring about microversions cease to be optional - and now microversions become the new major versions and there are 48 of them | |
| 12:34:15 | mordred | I'd rather us add things / change things over a few cycles using microversions until we like where we've got ... and then do a legit new major version based on where we got by iterating over time with the microversions | |
| 12:34:51 | mordred | that way consumers can continue to ignore microversions if they don't care about a specific feature and just program to the current major api version - and when a new major api version comes out then they can start caring about it | |
| 12:35:09 | mordred | but if we did new majors too often, it would also cause undue burden on people | |
| 12:35:31 | mordred | so it's certainly a balancing act that would take thought and likely can't be codified in a policy about 'when' a major is cut | |
| 12:35:40 | jroll | why are you making so much sense, I want to argue | |
| 12:35:42 | jroll | :) | |
| 12:36:02 | dtantsur | :D | |
| 12:36:05 | jroll | lol | |
| 12:36:14 | jroll | I think I'm good with that proposal, though probably needs more thought | |
| 12:37:16 | mordred | jroll: yes. much more thought - and discussion and whatnot | |
| 12:38:15 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Enable bare metal unit tests https://review.openstack.org/569401 | |
| 12:38:16 | dtantsur | mordred: this is quite urgent IMO ^^^ | |
| 12:39:19 | mordred | dtantsur: I agree - +A | |
| 12:40:21 | openstackgerrit | Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: baremetal: refuse to inspect associated machines https://review.openstack.org/569375 | |
| 12:51:34 | mordred | dtantsur: there's gonna me a small rabbit hole here - we need to land an osc patch that I pushed up this morning to fix the osc gate so that those patches will be green. but I have confidence we can get it done soon | |
| 13:00:16 | dtantsur | I see | |
| 13:08:40 | mordred | dtantsur: much text is needed in many places :) | |
| 13:09:05 | dtantsur | yep :) since I'm doing some work with openstacksdk now, I may be able to write a few paragraphs there | |
| 13:09:25 | dtantsur | (probably not today though) | |
| 13:46:42 | openstackgerrit | Pavlo Shchelokovskyy proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add --name-lookup option to server list https://review.openstack.org/568345 | |
| 14:02:11 | gtema | mordred: in my cloud router enable_snat is False by default. But in both openstacksdk and shade it is assumed to be True and therefore can be only switched off. | |
| 14:02:23 | gtema | mordred: Nice comment in the code " | |
| 14:02:24 | gtema | Sending it can cause a policy violation error | |
| 14:02:26 | gtema | # on some clouds. | |
| 14:02:54 | gtema | mordred: " makes me wonder how to fix the situation | |
| 14:14:19 | mordred | gtema: it looks to me like it defaults to None... ah | |
| 14:16:28 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Allow explicitly setting enable_snat to either value https://review.openstack.org/569422 | |
| 14:16:34 | mordred | gtema: how about that ^^ ? | |
| 14:18:01 | gtema | great. Was also thinking about that, but was confused by this comment. shade will also need the same, since ansible is having same problem | |
| 14:19:38 | gtema | mordred: what is the plan to switch ansible from shade to sdk? | |
| 14:20:03 | mordred | gtema: yes - we'll need the same patch for shade | |
| 14:22:09 | mordred | gtema: there's two parts to the plane. one is to make shade a thin wrapper around openstacksdk like we just did with os-client-config. the other is to update the ansible modules... I think we could start that transition in the modules before the thin-shim layer is done for ansible 2.6 - as shade for ansible 2.5 already has a dependency on openstacksdk, so people should already have it installed | |
| 14:23:34 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack-infra/shade master: Allow explicitly setting enable_snat to either value https://review.openstack.org/569425 | |