| opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: imagebackend: Add support to libvirt_info for LUKS based encryption https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/826755 | 06:10 |
|---|---|---|
| gibi | o/ | 06:49 |
| opendevreview | Takashi Natsume proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Create specs directory for 2023.1 Antelope https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/851007 | 07:00 |
| bauzas | \o | 07:25 |
| gibi | bauzas: I left feedback in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/838976 | 07:42 |
| bauzas | gibi: will look soon | 08:11 |
| opendevreview | wangkuntian proposed openstack/nova master: Modify the url of openstack client commands. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851197 | 09:02 |
| gibi | stephenfin, sean-k-mooney: we have valid py310 failures in the mock switch patch | 09:39 |
| gibi | we can debate that py310 is non voting, so we can merge regardless but as the failure is valid we just pushing the problem to our future slef | 09:41 |
| gibi | self | 09:41 |
| kashyap | gibi: Morning, can you give this another go? - I've addressed your concerns: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851034 | 09:42 |
| gibi | sure | 09:42 |
| gibi | done +2 | 09:43 |
| gibi | thanks for the releasenotes | 09:43 |
| kashyap | gibi: Thank you! Now to figure out the backports | 09:44 |
| gibi | I expect it to be painless as you have a well contained change | 09:44 |
| kashyap | Yeah, checking | 09:48 |
| kashyap | sean-k-mooney: or bauzas - Can you put it through, pls - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851034 | 09:49 |
| bauzas | ack | 09:49 |
| kashyap | bauzas: Just for info: the above code was functionally (in a real env) tested by Red Hat support folks | 09:51 |
| kashyap | gibi: Heh, Yoga backport itself has conflicts :D /me goes to look | 09:54 |
| kashyap | It's simple, though | 09:54 |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851202 | 09:58 |
| opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove the PowerVM driver https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/850346 | 10:00 |
| bauzas | kashyap: -1 just for the relnote https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851034 | 10:09 |
| bauzas | I could accept this change, but I'd change the note to use 'feature' and not 'upgrade' | 10:10 |
| bauzas | so given we're not close to the deadline, that's why I'm asking just for this nit | 10:10 |
| bauzas | at least for operators looking at our releasenotes | 10:11 |
| kashyap | bauzas: FWIW, I've actually seen other rel-notes for such things and chose the 'upgrade' thing | 10:11 |
| kashyap | bauzas: As this is mostly useful during that scenario | 10:11 |
| sean-k-mooney[m] | both points are valid | 10:12 |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/xena: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851205 | 10:12 |
| bauzas | kashyap: https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/releasenotes.html?highlight=reno#when-a-release-note-is-needed | 10:12 |
| sean-k-mooney[m] | it is a new feature but its also a workaround that is only usefule for upgrades and limited other cases | 10:13 |
| kashyap | sean-k-mooney[m]: bauzas: I could use "other" flag, then | 10:13 |
| bauzas | kashyap: honestly, my thought is just about operators looking at our notes | 10:13 |
| bauzas | I know some of them | 10:13 |
| kashyap | bauzas: Yeah, I get that | 10:13 |
| bauzas | in general, they look at two sections | 10:13 |
| kashyap | bauzas: How about "other", then? | 10:13 |
| bauzas | kashyap: if you want | 10:14 |
| bauzas | my only concern was about the 'upgrade' section | 10:14 |
| kashyap | bauzas: Just vote - you and Sean :) | 10:14 |
| bauzas | as I was saying, operators look at two sections | 10:14 |
| kashyap | "feature" or "other" | 10:14 |
| kashyap | I'll respin right away (inncluding the backports) | 10:14 |
| bauzas | they look at the prelude section (for knowing what we have) and at the upgrade section (to know what they need to verify) | 10:15 |
| bauzas | here, they don't need to verify anything | 10:15 |
| bauzas | hence my concern | 10:15 |
| bauzas | kashyap: about 'feature' or 'other', meh. | 10:16 |
| kashyap | bauzas: Sure, I'll go w/ 'feature' | 10:17 |
| bauzas | thanks | 10:18 |
| bauzas | appreciated | 10:18 |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851034 | 10:20 |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851202 | 10:20 |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/xena: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851205 | 10:21 |
| kashyap | bauzas: --^ | 10:31 |
| bauzas | kashyap: you're late | 10:31 |
| kashyap | Hehe | 10:31 |
| kashyap | Thank you! | 10:31 |
| kashyap | bauzas: Can you also ACK the backports, then, please? | 10:32 |
| bauzas | I can | 10:32 |
| kashyap | Thx | 10:34 |
| kashyap | sean-k-mooney[m]: Unrelated - I see this is still active, can you pls ACK this too: "[nova/libvirt] Support for checking and enabling SMM when needed | 10:34 |
| kashyap | " | 10:34 |
| kashyap | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/849610 | 10:34 |
| kashyap | (Cc: gibi) | 10:35 |
| * kashyap apologizes for several pings today | 10:35 | |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/wallaby: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851206 | 10:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | kashyap: i wasnt going to review teh wallaby backport until the xena one had merged | 10:40 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/849676 | 10:40 |
| kashyap | Sure | 10:40 |
| kashyap | But it's the same thing | 10:40 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes but it cant merge until that one does so i review them in order | 10:41 |
| kashyap | Sigh, also this stable/yoga backport is not merged yet - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845045 (libvirt: Add a workaround to skip compareCPU() on destination | 10:41 |
| kashyap | ) | 10:41 |
| kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Oh, sure | 10:41 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Allow unshelve to a specific host (Compute API part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/831507 | 11:44 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Allow unshelve to a specific host (REST API part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845897 | 11:45 |
| gibi | \o/ | 11:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: gibi how do we want to proceed with the mock change? | 11:46 |
| gibi | sean-k-mooney: good question | 11:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | im kind of sad that we chose to delay it last cycle | 11:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | to drop 3.6 | 11:47 |
| gibi | sean-k-mooney: I'm not sure I will have enough time today to try to fix the duplicate mock issue | 11:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | and now we added 3.10 which is causing other issues | 11:47 |
| gibi | I don't know if stephenfin looked at it yet or not | 11:47 |
| gibi | I can be convinced to let it land and fix the 310 issue separately I just affraid that we will forget about it and only realize it again when we want to make the py310 job votinh | 11:49 |
| gibi | g | 11:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya thats a valid concen | 11:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | the 3.10 fixes shoudl be a seperate patch in my opipion | 11:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | it would be nice ot have it in the seriese | 11:50 |
| gibi | I agree with that | 11:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | but not sure how much work it is | 11:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | im also not partically happy with the decision they made in 3.10 | 11:51 |
| gibi | me neither but I feel like it is not a oneliner | 11:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | double mocking is perhaps ineffenct but i think it should be allowed | 11:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | so im sad they made that breakign change | 11:51 |
| gibi | lets wait for stephenfin to chime in. Also I can try to look into it tomorrow to see how big is the issue | 11:52 |
| gibi | then we can reconsider | 11:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | we might need to add a helper funciton that check if its mocked and only create a new mock if not | 11:52 |
| gibi | I would go and remove the duplicates if possible | 11:52 |
| gibi | but I don't know how hard that will be | 11:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes if we can do that once | 11:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | then we will never hit this again because it will fail | 11:53 |
| gibi | the helper feels like a coverup | 11:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | im just worried about loading the context of is this mocked | 11:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | again with the new behaivor it shoudl be obvious i guess because it will fail | 11:54 |
| gibi | yeah | 11:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | i just hope this does not cause shared global state | 11:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | the fixture should be set up for every test | 11:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we likely will have to replace part of them in the test where its double mocking | 11:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | as i feel like we double mock somethimes when the fixture does not provide exactly what we want | 11:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | i know i have done that at least once | 11:58 |
| gibi | yes, I think that is the "normal" case when we double mock. I did that before | 11:58 |
| gibi | so in this case the fixture should expose the mock | 11:58 |
| gibi | so the test case can use it instead of remocking it | 11:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | well we can jsut create a new mock object and assign it | 11:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | instaed of having it patch it again | 11:59 |
| gibi | we cannot create the new Mock as autospec will fail | 11:59 |
| gibi | as it will try to spec what is already mocked | 11:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | we can with mock.Mock() | 12:00 |
| gibi | hm | 12:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | we dont tend to use autospec much | 12:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | we do in somecases but i rarely do | 12:00 |
| gibi | A().foo = mock.Mock() is a monkeypatch that is not reverted automatically so that is a bad pattern | 12:01 |
| gibi | also I think there is automatic autospecing in the mock lib (obviously not for mock.Mock() but for mock.patch decorator) | 12:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | i dont think there is | 12:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | or at least | 12:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | its behavior shoudl be the same as the standard lib | 12:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | so if there is it shoudl be in both | 12:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | gibi: in the A().foo = mock.Mock() | 12:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | we shoudl not need to revert that automaticlly if A is a mock already | 12:03 |
| gibi | ahh, yeah, I ment there is automatic autospec in both lib and stdlib | 12:03 |
| gibi | sean-k-mooney: yeah, if A().foo is already a mocked then that mock's patcher.stop() will revert the change. But the caller doing the A().foo = mock.Mock() does not know if foo is a Mock. So we establish a dangerous pattern | 12:04 |
| gibi | if that pattern is used to other than a mocked field the we will leak global state between tests | 12:05 |
| sean-k-mooney | gibi: right but we would only do that for the double mock case | 12:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i agreee in general its bad | 12:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | we have leaked state that way in the past | 12:06 |
| gibi | yes, now, but then the next new dev came look at the code and think that A().foo = mock.Mock() is a generic pattern | 12:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | where a mock was assinged to a stdlib function | 12:07 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that is why i was wondering if we need a nova helper fucniton | 12:07 |
| sean-k-mooney | to basiclaly always do the right thing | 12:07 |
| gibi | but that mean all our mocking need to go through that helper | 12:07 |
| gibi | that will be a massive change | 12:07 |
| sean-k-mooney | perhaps i need to think about what pattern we can actully use that will work | 12:08 |
| gibi | anyhow I'd like to do a non theorethicaly investigation with this | 12:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | perhaps using the mock as a context manager | 12:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | but not sure if that would still fail for the double mocking case | 12:08 |
| gibi | btw this is why I remembered automatic autospeccing https://review.opendev.org/q/message:autospec+project:openstack/nova+status:merged | 12:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | sure but that not automatic | 12:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | that was exiplcitly enabling it and new right | 12:10 |
| gibi | yeah, I missremembered | 12:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh ok | 12:10 |
| gibi | I will look at this mock thing tomorrow | 12:10 |
| gibi | now I'm in a middle fighting with reshape + provider generation conflict | 12:11 |
| gibi | I'm in the denial phase where I think my code is correct and reshape is broken :D | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | :) | 12:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | maybe but if thats the case you will probly have to fix it in placment yes | 12:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | so hopefully the issue is in your current code | 12:13 |
| gibi | I know :D | 12:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | that feels like less work | 12:13 |
| gibi | hence "denial" | 12:13 |
| gibi | anyhow I think this is the first case when we both create new RPs and reshape allocations at the same time | 12:13 |
| gibi | from nova | 12:14 |
| gibi | and RP creation is outside of the reshape code | 12:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | if nova has not done it its likely no one else has | 12:15 |
| sean-k-mooney | i dont think neutron or cyborg have used reshapes before | 12:15 |
| gibi | me neither | 12:16 |
| bauzas | I just capture the discussion | 12:50 |
| bauzas | is it because unittest.mock is not on par with our mock lib ? | 12:51 |
| gibi | it is that in py310 unittest.mock introduced a breaking change. The mock lib is a rolling backport of the upstream unittest.mock so at some point this change will appera in the standalone mock lib too | 12:52 |
| kashyap | bauzas: Please put the stable/wallaby backport through: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851206 | 12:52 |
| kashyap | gibi ACKed it too; and you've ACKed the upstream main | 12:52 |
| gibi | kashyap: we need to land the backports in order | 12:53 |
| gibi | so we land the yoga first | 12:53 |
| gibi | then xena | 12:53 |
| gibi | then wallaby | 12:53 |
| kashyap | gibi: Oh, yes. I mean to also implicitly look at 'em. :) | 12:54 |
| gibi | ack | 12:54 |
| bauzas | gibi: which breaking change ? | 12:54 |
| gibi | if you mock a function twice, the second mocking attempt will fail | 12:54 |
| gibi | as autospecing a mock is disallowed now | 12:55 |
| bauzas | then we should wait for our mock lib | 12:55 |
| gibi | what? why? | 12:55 |
| gibi | why it is better to get the same breaking change later? | 12:56 |
| bauzas | we should change the related tests first due to this | 12:56 |
| bauzas | gibi: well, once our mock lib would be modified, then the CI wouldn't work and we would see it so we could not accept the new release | 12:57 |
| bauzas | then we could modify the tests | 12:57 |
| bauzas | for this new release | 12:57 |
| bauzas | and then accepting the new release | 12:57 |
| gibi | this is the same thing. If we want to accept py310 it means we need to accept all the breaking changes there. | 12:58 |
| gibi | so we are only debating when to fix those duplicated mocks | 12:59 |
| bauzas | at least we need to modify the only needed tests | 12:59 |
| gibi | and as the mock switch is ready now I think we should fix it now | 12:59 |
| bauzas | before changing to use unittest.mock | 12:59 |
| gibi | why before? we can switch to unittest.mock and then fix the duplicated mock to get the py310 non voting job gren | 13:00 |
| gibi | green again | 13:00 |
| gibi | switching first make py310 job telling us where are the duplicates | 13:01 |
| admin1 | i have nova using local disk , but glance and cinder uses ceph .. when using snapshots, i get broken pipe from nova compute .. is there any special way ceph needs to be configured for snapshots to work ? | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | admin1: no in that config nova should upload the snapshot via the glace http api | 13:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | so it will create a snapshot using qemu-image then upload that disk | 13:12 |
| opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: api: Drop generating a keypair and add special chars to naming https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/849133 | 13:19 |
| bauzas | rebased my keypair api microversion due to unshelve_to_host merge ^ | 13:20 |
| bauzas | people can review it | 13:20 |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/victoria: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851223 | 13:27 |
| gibi | bauzas: +2, do you have an python binding patch and or osc patch with the client side change? | 13:31 |
| bauzas | not yet | 13:31 |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/victoria: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851223 | 13:31 |
| gibi | Uggla: similar question to you too, do you have a client patch for the unshelve to host change? | 13:32 |
| gibi | bauzas: ack | 13:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | technically we dont need thos to merge the nova change but ya woudl be nice to see them sooner rather then later | 13:32 |
| Uggla | gibi, yes give you the ids in one sec | 13:32 |
| gibi | in the past we said we would at least like to see the client patches proposed (not merged) before we approve a microversion | 13:32 |
| gibi | Uggla: awesome | 13:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | ill be dropping soon but ill see if i have time to review before i do | 13:32 |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/ussuri: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851224 | 13:33 |
| Uggla | gibi: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/831651 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/831902 | 13:34 |
| gibi | Uggla: thanks | 13:34 |
| Uggla | gibi, there is also a related tempest test: 841088: Tempest test for checking unshelve to host | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/841088 | 13:35 |
| gibi | ack | 13:35 |
| opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/train: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851226 | 13:38 |
| kashyap | bauzas: gibi: If you have the stomach for it today still (other backports): https://review.opendev.org/q/Iec387dcbc49ddb91ebf5cfd188224eaf6021c0e1 | 13:40 |
| bauzas | gibi: kashyap: was working on the novaclient change | 13:40 |
| kashyap | No worries | 13:40 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Add a workaround to skip hypervisor version check on LM https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851034 | 13:46 |
| gibi | Uggla: I left feedback in the python-novaclient patch and +1d the osc patch. nice work! | 14:04 |
| Uggla | gibi, ok I'll have a look ASAP. | 14:05 |
| *** akekane_ is now known as abhishekk | 14:12 | |
| opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Add support for 2.92 : keypair import mandatory https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/851231 | 14:12 |
| bauzas | gibi: ^ | 14:13 |
| gibi | bauzas: thanks | 14:13 |
| bauzas | now working on the OSC patch | 14:13 |
| gibi | bauzas: you probably want to put your novaclient patch top of Uggla's | 14:14 |
| bauzas | gibi: there is a depends-on my api patch | 14:14 |
| bauzas | gibi: but I can rebase it | 14:14 |
| gibi | yeah, keep the depends on, but rebase your client patch on Uggla's client patch | 14:15 |
| gibi | otherwise you will be in merge conflict | 14:15 |
| bauzas | gibi: cool, yeah I know about the merge conflict but the fix will be simple | 14:16 |
| gibi | yepp | 14:16 |
| gibi | othervise your client patch looks good to me | 14:16 |
| opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Add support for 2.92 : keypair import mandatory https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/851231 | 14:20 |
| bauzas | gibi: done | 14:20 |
| gibi | bauzas: thanks, reapplied my +@ | 14:20 |
| gibi | +2 | 14:20 |
| bauzas | thanks | 14:21 |
| * bauzas needs to have a home haircut | 14:21 | |
| * bauzas is back in 20 mins | 14:21 | |
| gibi | your home has hair? ;) | 14:21 |
| *** dasm|off is now known as dasm | 14:42 | |
| bauzas | gibi: sorry, haircut *at* home :p | 14:45 |
| bauzas | my wife and I have a hairdresser visiting uds | 14:46 |
| gibi | ohh, nice | 14:46 |
| gibi | my wife tend to cut mine | 14:46 |
| bauzas | cheaper and better | 14:46 |
| gibi | that is the cheapest :) | 14:46 |
| bauzas | yeah but if I use a hair mower, then my hair will have issues :) | 14:47 |
| bauzas | I prefer to have a pro using scissors | 14:48 |
| artom | gibi, so rollback_live_migration_at_destination() is the cast that contains the mutated migrated context, right? | 15:48 |
| artom | So what if we just change it to a call instead of cast to make it blocking? | 15:48 |
| artom | That way, we're sure that by the time we drop the claim, we're out of the mutated context? | 15:48 |
| gibi | that is a dirty thing that will mean we will have a short time window where the db contains the wrong info, then then the second call will return the db content to the correct state | 15:49 |
| gibi | so we will have a smaller race window | 15:49 |
| gibi | but we still have the race | 15:49 |
| artom | You're assuming that mutating the context saves to the DB? | 15:50 |
| artom | I don't think that's the case | 15:50 |
| gibi | we mutate the context and then save the instance today | 15:50 |
| gibi | just the mutate is not an issue | 15:50 |
| gibi | the instance.save happens in _cleanup in the driver | 15:50 |
| gibi | and that is run under the mutated context | 15:51 |
| gibi | links to the code are here https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1982497/comments/2 | 15:52 |
| artom | gibi, oh, right | 15:53 |
| artom | We mutate the context in the compute manager, and in that context we eventually call down to instance.save() in the libvirt driver | 15:53 |
| gibi | hence my second patch that forbids instance.save under the mutated context to avoid this in the fututre | 15:53 |
| gibi | artom: yes | 15:53 |
| artom | Wait, so why did you jump through the sync loops in your reproducer test? | 15:54 |
| artom | The Condition(), for example? | 15:54 |
| gibi | I needed a special serialization order to make sure that we avoid the case when we save the wrong state, then right after we save the good state. | 15:54 |
| artom | Ah | 15:55 |
| gibi | _rollback_live_migration makes the DB invalid then drop_move_claim_at_destination fixes it. | 15:55 |
| gibi | so in that order it is just a small race window (same as if we would make _rollback_live_migration a call instead of a cast) | 15:56 |
| gibi | interestingly in a real environment _rollback_live_migration tend to take longer and finishing _after_ drop_move_claim_at_destination probably due to _rollback_live_migration doing disk IO that can be slow | 15:57 |
| artom | I mean we could just remove the instance.save() from the cleanrup()... | 15:58 |
| artom | And count on the compute manager doing it later... | 15:58 |
| artom | Sounds fragile | 15:58 |
| gibi | artom: yepp that is one way, we can do that and then figure out the fallout | 15:59 |
| gibi | it seems we have that instance.save as delete_instance_files() can fail and we want to retry | 16:00 |
| gibi | later in a periodic if that fails | 16:00 |
| gibi | unfortunately _cleanup not just set instance.cleaned but also init instance.system_metadata['clean_attempts'] that is used in _run_pending_deletes | 16:02 |
| gibi | and honestly not 100% sure if that is the only instance update we do during the full destroy codepath | 16:02 |
| gibi | I think that is the only instance.save but maybe other pieces of code also changes the instance that we would loose if we remove the instance.save | 16:03 |
| melwitt | gmann: fyi the tempest tests for the volume extend coverage have merged, so I think the nova patch to start running the tests is ready for review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/843700 | 16:08 |
| gmann | melwitt: checking | 16:08 |
| melwitt | thanks! | 16:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | im going to go nap soon i think but i might review the keypair change before or after | 16:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | is that the next microverion in the queue | 16:57 |
| gibi | t is | 17:14 |
| gibi | it is | 17:14 |
| bauzas | I'm just about to upload the OSC patch in 5 mins | 17:14 |
| bauzas | after creating the relnote | 17:14 |
| bauzas | so we'll have all the meat for 2.92 except the tempest tests | 17:15 |
| sean-k-mooney[m] | ok cool | 17:15 |
| bauzas | WTF | 17:21 |
| bauzas | [sbauza@sbauza python-openstackclient]$ git review -s | 17:22 |
| bauzas | Problems encountered installing commit-msg hook | 17:22 |
| bauzas | The following command failed with exit code 255 | 17:22 |
| bauzas | "scp -P29418 sbauza@review.opendev.org:hooks/commit-msg .git/hooks/commit-msg" | 17:22 |
| bauzas | ok, fixed by following https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Alternatives_to_git-review | 17:26 |
| bauzas | there it goes : | 17:27 |
| bauzas | gibi: sean-k-mooney: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:bp%252Fkeypair-generation-removal | 17:27 |
| bauzas | all the changes are up | 17:27 |
| * bauzas disappears for now | 17:28 | |
| sean-k-mooney[m] | gmann: holding +w to leave bauzas respond to your comments | 17:42 |
| sean-k-mooney[m] | i think they could be adressed in a followup | 17:42 |
| *** dasm is now known as dasm|off | 21:02 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!