| opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: Add flavor scanning to migrate_to_unified_limits https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924110 | 05:38 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add [quota]unified_limits_required_resources list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924025 | 05:38 |
| bauzas | happy spec review day, folks | 08:23 |
| opendevreview | Max proposed openstack/nova master: fix: leftover BDM after instance delete https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934984 | 08:29 |
| opendevreview | Max proposed openstack/nova master: fix: leftover volume_attachment on instance delete https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934984 | 09:41 |
| opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/nova master: reno: Update master for unmaintained/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/935117 | 10:43 |
| opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/os-vif master: reno: Update master for unmaintained/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/935119 | 10:43 |
| opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/osc-placement master: reno: Update master for unmaintained/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-placement/+/935121 | 10:44 |
| opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/placement master: reno: Update master for unmaintained/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/935123 | 10:45 |
| opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: reno: Update master for unmaintained/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/935125 | 10:45 |
| simondodsley | How often are new Nova bugs looked at? I have a customer who raised a bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2080531) on 09/12 and it hasn't been triagged by the looks of it. | 15:43 |
| *** artom_ is now known as artom | 15:54 | |
| artom | Left a question about the need for a new microversion on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873901 - is gmann still our microversion guru? | 15:55 |
| gibi | artom: is this transforming an unhandled exception to a handled exception on the API, if so then it does not need a microversion | 15:57 |
| gibi | the addition of the possible new return code 409 is more gray area to me | 15:57 |
| artom | gibi, yeah, that latter point is a gray area for me too. | 15:58 |
| artom | And it's the crux of my question. | 15:58 |
| gibi | According to the OpenStack API Working Group, a 500 Internal Server Error should NOT be returned to the user for failures due to user error that can be fixed by changing the request on the client side. This kind of a fix doesn’t require a change to the microversion. | 15:59 |
| gibi | https://docs.openstack.org/senlin/ocata/developer/api_microversion.html | 15:59 |
| gibi | so if it was a 500 then I would say according to the diagram we don't need a new microversion. | 16:00 |
| gibi | but if we want to be safe then we can change the patch to return 400 instead of 409 and then it is not a new status code either | 16:00 |
| artom | Yeah, I'm just not sure how to treat the fact that clients out there might not be equipped to deal with a 409 for that particular API | 17:28 |
| gibi | then lets switch it to 400. 400 is generic so it is not a problem to return it, we just cannot return the most specific code we want | 17:48 |
| melwitt | I'm not sure if we have to stick to only the 400's that are currently there. gmann can you remind me are we allowed to add say 409 to an API that already has 400 and 403 without a microversion? ^ | 17:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think this is in the microvertion doc we can go to 403 | 17:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | and we can go to any exsitng code use by that api | 17:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | so if 409 is used for soemthign elce for that action then we can extend that | 17:52 |
| melwitt | ok, so it has to be an existing code. I didn't remember that | 17:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | well that im not sure of but i know we are allwoed to go form 500 to an existing code | 17:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | and 401 and 403 are alwasy allowed in addtion to 400 | 17:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | 409 i not sure | 17:52 |
| melwitt | ack | 17:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | i alwasy have to look that last point up | 17:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/microversions.html | 17:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | he exception to not needing a microversion when returning a previously unspecified error code is the 400, 403, 404 and 415 cases. | 17:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | 400 is more correct anyway as its not a issue with the stae of things | 17:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | its an issue wth the contet of the request | 17:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | although i can see an argument for 409 on other grounds | 17:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | i personlay argued for 409 before | 17:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i didnt think we shoudl backport this then | 17:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | if i recall when i reviewd this in the past i argued that it shold be a case sensieive check | 17:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | we went back and forth on that bug a few times | 17:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | by the way since its a spec review day https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/934391 it would be nice to move forward with the unified limits spec | 19:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | dansmith: ^ is that something you have time to look at today | 19:23 |
| mikal | In terms of spec reviews, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/932387 should be relatively trivial too given it has a +2 and is largely unchanged from last time. | 20:19 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/os-vif master: reno: Update master for unmaintained/2023.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/935119 | 20:43 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Clean up the remaining logic for Windows OS Support https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/932407 | 22:52 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!