Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-sdks - 2026-10-21
15:07:51 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/1011568
15:08:18 stephenfin though I think melwitt has it in hand. It's an SDK/OSC interaction thing as opposed to something cyborg specific we think
15:08:21 sean-k-mooney i think i have a deployment with cyborg i can test that on one sec
15:08:53 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: before you do, see my comments on same
15:09:44 sean-k-mooney ah
15:09:46 sean-k-mooney i see
15:10:02 sean-k-mooney yes that is plasuaible
15:10:03 stephenfin cardoe: jfyi I left some comments on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/1011547/ so Ade has respun. I'm holding off +W'ing in case you want to take another spin through it
15:10:26 sean-k-mooney melwitt: i assuem you dont have teh max api version set in your clouds.yaml or openrc
15:10:42 sean-k-mooney i dont think the cybrog plugin does that but good to check in yoru devstack
15:11:01 melwitt ohhhh I do have it set
15:11:14 stephenfin yeah, that'd do it :)
15:11:18 melwitt that must be why. argh I don't remember doing that sorry
15:12:20 sean-k-mooney ok i jsut checked my devstack and they are not set by default
15:12:29 melwitt ok ok. good. but yeah, I am working on this bc I was going through cyborgclient plugin <=> OSC parity and realizing that is missing still while i was working on making the docs work
15:13:16 melwitt thanks sean-k-mooney you saved me a lot of time haha
15:13:47 sean-k-mooney i just went throught the list of things that bit me in the past
15:13:53 sean-k-mooney and it happend to be the first one
15:14:00 melwitt :D
15:28:58 melwitt stephenfin: ok, so what is the right way to bump the version if we want to do it for all resources under cyborg, not only Device?
15:30:09 melwitt unless it's to set _max_microversion on all of them separately. I assumed that would not be the way
15:31:53 stephenfin the expectation is that each Resource gets _max_microversion set to the latest version that changed something about that resource
15:32:12 stephenfin is there a reason you want to use >= 2.0 for resources != Device?
15:32:16 melwitt ok, I see
15:32:22 stephenfin err, > 2.0
15:33:00 melwitt yes for device profile we have some capability under 2.2 for handling both name and uuid
15:33:22 stephenfin right, so DeviceProfile would get 2.2
15:33:44 melwitt so I would just set that one to 2.2 according to this pattern
15:34:06 stephenfin yeah
15:34:15 melwitt ok got it
15:38:13 stephenfin This should be documented. If it's not done, I'd be happy to review some (brief, if LLM-written) contributor docs on same
15:38:25 stephenfin Only if you want to, obviously 🤷
15:38:43 melwitt sure. sorry if I missed the doc
15:51:15 opendevreview Merged openstack/cliff master: Move dependencies to pyproject.toml https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cliff/+/1010701
15:51:17 opendevreview Merged openstack/cliff master: Add release notes build https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cliff/+/1010702
15:55:43 opendevreview Merged openstack/cliff master: Add ShowOneWithDetails for field-oriented tables https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cliff/+/1010703
16:30:30 opendevreview Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix the block storage v3 index to say v3 instead of v2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/1011354
22:19:25 cardoe stephenfin: done going through stuff.
22:20:26 cardoe stephenfin: do we have a type for UUID-like? We pass around a UUID that's really string-ified. We also need a UUID | "default" type.
#openstack-sdks - 2026-10-22
08:30:52 opendevreview Merged openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Fix dns zone update issues in CI https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/1011348
08:37:39 stephenfin cardoe: in what context?
08:37:51 stephenfin (the UUID-like type)
09:57:07 opendevreview Jed Preist proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Add target_provision_state option to baremetal_node https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/1010852
10:06:25 opendevreview Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: Fix Barbican key-manager microversion negotiation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/1011547
10:06:28 opendevreview Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: Add Barbican secret store migrate helper https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/1002400
10:08:59 opendevreview Jed Preist proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Add target_provision_state option to baremetal_node https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/1010852
10:20:04 opendevreview Moritz Tanner proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: image: do a web-download import when uri is given https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/1006899
11:50:13 opendevreview Merged openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Handle the cloud parameter as a dict in application_credential module https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/955695
11:59:59 opendevreview Merged openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Use **-operator to unpack dict in volume_type_access https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/1006027
12:00:02 opendevreview Merged openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Fix: Include target_project_id in RBAC creation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/964684

Earlier   Later