| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-08-15 | |||
| 21:40:05 | mordred | efried: yeah - I think there are some other code paths in there that will return you something | |
| 21:40:40 | efried | no, this was for placement, which doesn't have a shim, so it should be hitting that code path. | |
| 21:40:55 | efried | which is actually confirmed by the logging - I don't see that "Fallback" message, which is only emitted when allow_version_hack=True. | |
| 21:41:26 | mordred | ah - gotit. so maybe check that get_endpoint() actually returns something? | |
| 21:42:14 | efried | yeah, exactly | |
| 21:42:21 | mordred | what if ... | |
| 21:42:52 | mordred | if self._strict_proxies - we do temp_client.get_endpoint_data() instead of get_endpoint() - and check to make sure endpoint_data has a version? | |
| 21:43:10 | efried | do all services have a version? | |
| 21:45:21 | mordred | everything except swift I think | |
| 21:45:46 | mordred | but I'm not 100% sure if that's the right thing to test | |
| 21:46:22 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: WIP Add a strict_proxies option for services https://review.opendev.org/676829 | |
| 21:46:33 | mordred | efried: ^^ shotgun to see if we can get one of the things to trigger :) | |
| 21:46:56 | mordred | and then figure out which one is the RIGHT one to trigger on when the brain has more available brainjuice | |
| 21:46:56 | efried | mordred: What's weird is, I'm making sure that get_endpoint[_data] should fail, but the proxy is still returning. | |
| 21:47:10 | efried | is there a try/except somewhere up above? | |
| 21:47:16 | mordred | there shouldn't be | |
| 21:47:27 | mordred | and that is weird | |
| 21:47:41 | efried | I'm not getting an actual exception until I try to use the thing. | |
| 21:47:46 | mordred | you don't have that patch that added a placement service_description in do you? | |
| 21:48:34 | mordred | efried: (I'm probably going to want to construct a bunch of weird tests for this one so we can be sure we've got this covered) | |
| 21:49:20 | efried | mordred: Well, yes, I have the commit that added placement service_description, but that only happens in a test fixture, when you setUp the fixture, which I'm not doing locally. | |
| 21:50:46 | mordred | weird | |
| 21:51:46 | mordred | efried: I unfortunately have to adjourn to the dinner - if you find anything, let me know - otherwise I'll pick it up first thing in the morning and see if I can't construct some catalogs/request_mock tests we can use | |
| 21:52:11 | efried | mordred: Thank you sir. I'll noodle with it for a few more minutes before I, too, have to run (and choke some people) | |
| 21:59:51 | efried | mordred: a couple of typos notwithstanding, strict_proxies is a success. | |
| 22:00:56 | mordred | efried: yes? SWEET | |
| 22:01:09 | mordred | efried: then in the morning I'll work on tests and cleaning it up | |
| 22:01:28 | efried | mordred: Sweet, then we'll need 0.35.0 pretty quick. | |
| 22:01:48 | efried | I'll mark up the typos (at least the ones I saw), least I can do :P | |
| 22:03:04 | efried | mordred: It works for placement... I'm not sure it'll work for ironic. I need to dig more. | |
| 22:54:54 | adriant | mordred: how/when do we want to do the MFA work? | |
| 23:01:36 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: WIP: Connection(strict_proxies) https://review.opendev.org/676837 | |
| 23:01:56 | efried | mordred: there's my spin on it ^ | |
| 23:02:02 | adriant | I don't know your timetable, but wanna organise a meeting time and I can stay up late so we can discuss and plan? | |
| 23:02:05 | adriant | mordred: ^ | |
| 23:09:59 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: WIP: Connection(strict_proxies) https://review.opendev.org/676837 | |
| 23:16:36 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: WIP: Connection(strict_proxies) https://review.opendev.org/676837 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-08-16 | |||
| 02:45:24 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Microversion 2.77: Support Specifying AZ to unshelve https://review.opendev.org/665336 | |
| 11:27:02 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: WIP: Connection(strict_proxies) https://review.opendev.org/676837 | |
| 11:27:31 | mordred | efried: I like your version. that ^^ fixes it so that the existing tests work - I'm gonna add new tests now | |
| 12:31:35 | efried | mordred: awesome. I will try to spin up a nova patch that Depends-On it, but I've had trouble making that work recently. | |
| 12:32:01 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add strict_proxies option for Connection https://review.opendev.org/676837 | |
| 12:32:20 | mordred | efried: that now has tests (that showed some issues, so they're good tests :) ) | |
| 12:32:36 | efried | good stuff | |
| 12:33:09 | mordred | efried: I turned on strict_proxies in the from_conf tests - since the overlap of the two is gonna be pretty common | |
| 12:33:38 | efried | mordred: Do you think there's value in getting some real cloud to play around with before we unleash this on the world? | |
| 12:33:48 | mordred | maybe? | |
| 12:34:01 | efried | Since the last couple of iterations have only uncovered more problems we couldn't really have known about | |
| 12:34:26 | mordred | yeah. this is a tricky one | |
| 12:34:34 | efried | The release process is pretty smooth, but still takes a couple of days, so it would be nice to be able to iterate faster. | |
| 12:34:44 | mordred | although isn't it devstack that found the ironic thing? | |
| 12:34:53 | efried | It was devstack CI | |
| 12:35:04 | efried | which I don't have a way to do, I don't think. | |
| 12:35:04 | mordred | yeah - so that's at least good :) | |
| 12:35:09 | efried | I mean locally | |
| 12:35:13 | efried | "locally" | |
| 12:36:07 | efried | Donny at Fortnebula is a teammate, and loves slinging hardware at me, so this is a thing that could be set up in quite short order, and then both of us could play on it. | |
| 12:36:23 | mordred | dtantsur|afk: could use your eyes on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676837/ - it's related to stuff found between ironic and nova originally | |
| 12:36:31 | mordred | oh cool, donny is awesome | |
| 12:36:39 | efried | indeed | |
| 12:47:30 | efried | mordred: Does _strict_proxies need to be private for some arcane reason related to "Connection objects need to be parsimonious about their public symbols"? | |
| 12:48:03 | efried | Cause as currently used it's accessed through an object, not through `self`, which makes my IDE sad (but is otherwise valid python) | |
| 12:50:43 | mordred | efried: weird that it makes your IDE sad... no, not really - I just tend to make all attributes private unless there's a reason to do otherwise. don't need to stand on principle or anything though | |
| 12:51:37 | efried | not sad like suicidal, just a faint grey underline with hover text like "Accessing a private thing from outside" | |
| 13:00:13 | mordred | oh - because of the instance thing ... private to class and private to library being concepts the ide likely can't just figure out. makes sense at least | |
| 13:01:03 | efried | It can figure them out, it's just a style rule that I have enabled (and personally like anyway) | |
| 13:01:16 | efried | it's totally nbd, I was just curious why you reverted that | |
| 13:03:13 | mordred | we can totally swap it back ... it's also totally nbd here | |
| 13:14:45 | Shrews | ???? | |
| 13:14:54 | Shrews | oh, i read that as "ndb", which scared me | |
| 13:15:06 | Shrews | because history | |
| 13:15:58 | efried | at the risk of making a fool of myself... what's ndb? | |
| 13:16:36 | Shrews | a mysql thing mordred and i did stuff worth waaaaaay back in time | |
| 13:16:43 | Shrews | s/worth/with/ | |
| 13:17:43 | Shrews | before open source companies sold for billions of $$$ | |
| 13:20:05 | mordred | back in the day ... | |
| 13:21:14 | efried | the air is thick with nostalgia | |
| 13:21:41 | Shrews | ooooh, that's what that stench is | |
| 13:22:28 | mordred | I thought it was jus tme | |
| 13:25:05 | efried | all work work work with you, never time for personal hygiene. | |
| 15:04:39 | cmorpheus | mordred: dtantsur|afk thoughts on https://review.opendev.org/676648 ? | |
| 15:06:00 | efried | cmorpheus: Does this not percolate down from https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676648/1/keystoneauth1/adapter.py@150 ? | |
| 15:06:33 | cmorpheus | they don't want to use an adapter for some reason | |
| 15:06:34 | efried | ...or do you need it directly settable on the actual Session (vs the Adapter)? | |
| 15:06:35 | efried | ah | |
| 15:06:48 | efried | there's a few things that are missing in that case. | |
| 15:06:59 | efried | (in general, not related to retries) | |
| 15:07:10 | efried | If you're going to do that, you'll probably also want the other three | |
| 15:07:20 | efried | status code retries, and intervals for both. | |
| 15:07:40 | mordred | yeah. I think they'd be better served by removing all that custom code and using sdk - but I might be biased | |
| 15:07:42 | efried | oh, /me sees the comments now. | |
| 15:07:51 | cmorpheus | mordred: heh | |
| 15:07:57 | mordred | I mean - there's a TON of code in heat/common/context.py | |
| 15:08:22 | mordred | but - maybe there's a reason | |
| 15:08:56 | mordred | honestly, I can't think of a reason to _not_ support adding all of the retry options directly to session - since ultimately it is a session that is the one doing the http layer work and the adapter is an openstack service config layer on top of it | |
| 15:09:12 | mordred | but I agree I think we should add all of them if we're going to add them | |
| 15:10:07 | mordred | but I still think we should start thinking about how we can delete that file from heat | |
| 15:10:19 | efried | mordred: I think it was when I was adding global_request_id (??) that we talked about this and decided it was only necessary to do it on Adapter. | |
| 15:11:04 | efried | oh, actually, I added it to Session.request, never mind. | |
| 15:11:23 | cmorpheus | my general thought was that if you knew you had a flaky service you might want to set retries for that, if all your services are so flaky that you want to set it globally in the session then that is sad times | |