| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher master: replace autopep8 with ruff. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948034 | 00:11 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher master: update pre-commit versions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948036 | 00:54 |
| *** rlandy__ is now known as rlandy | 11:28 | |
| dviroel | hi o/ - just a reminder that watcher meeting is starting in 5 minutes, in this channel | 11:55 |
| dviroel | #startmeeting watcher | 12:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu Apr 24 12:00:33 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dviroel. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 12:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 12:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'watcher' | 12:00 |
| dviroel | hi o/ - who's around today? | 12:01 |
| rlandy | o/ | 12:01 |
| mtembo | Hello o/ | 12:01 |
| jgilaber | hello o/ | 12:01 |
| dviroel | here is our meeting agenda for today | 12:02 |
| dviroel | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L33 (Meeting agenda) | 12:03 |
| amoralej | o/ | 12:03 |
| dviroel | please, feel free to add your own topics to the agenda | 12:03 |
| dviroel | there is a topic to place your changes that requires attention from reviewers | 12:03 |
| dviroel | there is also a topic for bugs, if you want to discuss any, please add to the end of the list too | 12:04 |
| dviroel | #topic Courtesy ping | 12:05 |
| dviroel | I added this one | 12:05 |
| dviroel | just want to propose the courtesy ping list idea | 12:05 |
| dviroel | it is part of the manila meetings for a long time already, and imho is useful | 12:05 |
| dviroel | we keep a list of irc nicks, at the top of the schedule, that want to receive a courtesy ping when the meeting starts, as a reminder | 12:06 |
| dviroel | if you want to receive the ping, just add your nick there, you can also remove it anytime | 12:06 |
| dviroel | the chair will only need to copy and paste the list, when the irc meeting starts | 12:07 |
| jgilaber | +1 sounds useful | 12:07 |
| dviroel | so you don't miss anything :) | 12:07 |
| dviroel | alright then, people can just add/remove their nicks as they want there | 12:09 |
| dviroel | tks | 12:09 |
| dviroel | next one | 12:09 |
| dviroel | #topic Reviews that need attention | 12:09 |
| dviroel | the first 2 are specs ready to review | 12:10 |
| dviroel | which I already bring in the last meeting | 12:10 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/943873 (disable cold/live migration for host maintenance strategy) | 12:10 |
| dviroel | this one I also need to get back and review the latest patch sets | 12:10 |
| dviroel | we already discussed about it in the ptg too | 12:11 |
| dviroel | pls take a look | 12:11 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-specs/+/947282 (Adds spec for extend compute model attributes) | 12:11 |
| dviroel | recently added this spec, to start discussing about how we can extend the compute model attributes, and how to use this information to improve our strategies | 12:12 |
| dviroel | i would like to receive some feedback there too | 12:12 |
| amoralej | wrt disable cold/live i was thinking it'd be nice probably for other strategies too, so it'd be nice if it can be implemented in a reusable way | 12:12 |
| dviroel | right, probably something that we could consider, depending on the strategy | 12:13 |
| dviroel | most of the strategies implemente their own decision on that, which is usually check the status of the instance | 12:14 |
| dviroel | to decide between live and cold migration | 12:14 |
| dviroel | we can discuss more about that in the spec, or even in the gerrit change proposed | 12:15 |
| amoralej | yep | 12:15 |
| dviroel | ++ | 12:15 |
| dviroel | ok, next in the list | 12:16 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/945331 (Make prometheus the default devstack example) | 12:16 |
| dviroel | both depends-on merged already | 12:17 |
| jgilaber | this change is ready for review, it adds devstack local.conf samples to deploy with prometheus as datasource | 12:17 |
| jgilaber | it also keeps the gnocchi samples that we have currently | 12:17 |
| dviroel | nice, thanks for updating the docs too | 12:18 |
| dviroel | I will take a look after the meeting | 12:18 |
| jgilaber | thanks dviroel | 12:18 |
| dviroel | ping sean-k-mooney to revisit it too | 12:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | o/ | 12:19 |
| * dviroel sean-k-mooney o/ | 12:19 | |
| sean-k-mooney | yep ill try and look at that again | 12:19 |
| dviroel | tks | 12:19 |
| dviroel | next | 12:20 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/946153 (Query by fqdn_label instead of instance for host metrics) | 12:20 |
| dviroel | this is a backport of a important fix | 12:20 |
| dviroel | but depends on the other one in the chain | 12:21 |
| dviroel | which is: | 12:21 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/946737/ (Drop sg_core prometheus related vars) | 12:21 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: ^ pls, this is a small backport, for ci | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that approved | 12:22 |
| dviroel | when you have some time | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh the second one | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | sure ill take a lookk | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/946153 | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | i assume is just sitting in zuul gate pipelien right | 12:22 |
| dviroel | no, there is a relation chain | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh right | 12:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok ya | 12:23 |
| amoralej | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/946737/ is required to unblock the ci, that's why the rest are rebased on it | 12:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack i have approved that now | 12:23 |
| dviroel | and the 3rd one in the chain will be | 12:23 |
| amoralej | thanks | 12:23 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/946732 (Aggregate by fqdn label instead instance in host cpu metrics) | 12:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya we shoudl merge all 3 togheter | 12:24 |
| dviroel | which is a follow up on the second one | 12:24 |
| dviroel | ack, thanks amoralej for proposing them | 12:24 |
| amoralej | I can propose a bug release once we have the three merged | 12:24 |
| sean-k-mooney | we could | 12:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | the more imporant release is the final bobcat release | 12:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | that shoudl happen this week | 12:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we can do a release of all stable branches this/next week | 12:25 |
| dviroel | +1 | 12:26 |
| amoralej | +1 | 12:26 |
| dviroel | ok, anyone want to bring any other review? | 12:26 |
| dviroel | #topic Bug Triage | 12:27 |
| dviroel | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2107467 (workload_stabilization strategy does show standard_deviation if it's below the audit threshold) | 12:27 |
| dviroel | jgilaber o/ | 12:27 |
| jgilaber | I wanted to get some thoughts on this bug | 12:28 |
| jgilaber | to me it seems a UX bug | 12:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | its mostly cosmetic so i woudl mark it as low impoarntce but its definetly valid | 12:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | you also have been workign on fixing this already | 12:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | right htis is related to how we store it in the db? | 12:29 |
| jgilaber | it's not quite the same | 12:29 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh how is this differnt | 12:29 |
| jgilaber | I found this bug when testing my fix for the db | 12:29 |
| jgilaber | the standard deviation is only stored if it larger than the user defined threshold for any of the metrics | 12:30 |
| jgilaber | it comes from https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/c4acce91d6bb87b4ab865bc8e4d442a148dba1d5/watcher/decision_engine/strategy/strategies/workload_stabilization.py#L472 | 12:30 |
| jgilaber | see the if in line 465 | 12:30 |
| jgilaber | if it's not, then the default value of 0.0 is stored | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | you could argue that its expected | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | since it did not meet the specified treshold it was "skipped" | 12:30 |
| jgilaber | yes, it's somewhat amibigous what to expect, that's why I wanted to bring it up | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | witht hat said | 12:30 |
| amoralej | even if it's below the threshold, i'd say it should be displayed | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think long term w ewill want to enhance wathcer to emit notifications for audits | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | and we will want to includ ethe effincaly indeicators | 12:31 |
| jgilaber | on the one hand I would expect to show the deviation calculated even if below the threshold | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i think it would be ok to change the behavior to alwasy store the calusated values | 12:31 |
| amoralej | it may be useful to track trends over time, i.e. | 12:31 |
| amoralej | +1 | 12:31 |
| dviroel | hum, if is below the expected value, there is no optimization to be done, which means that there is no efficacy indicators? | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | to me this is a precondition failutre | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | it did not meet tehre minitum required treshold | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | so they orginal authors choose not to store the values | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i get the ux side that jgilaber is raising | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | and i agree its both confusing and ambigouse | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i think we can set this to triaged and low | 12:33 |
| dviroel | i agree that is a useful information too, to be displayed | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | and then fix when we have time unless others object | 12:33 |
| jgilaber | there is another complication if we decide to change, what to do when there is more than one metric, display the largest deviation? | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | we need to display all of them | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | i thnk we alrady modifed the dashboard to do that | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | so to be clear it would not be ok to change the resoce format | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | we can save the calulated value instead of 0.0 | 12:35 |
| amoralej | it manages the thresholds independently if it uses two moetrics? (cpu and memory, i.e) | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | btu we cannot add or remvoe filed or change tohe overall respocen as that would requrie a new api microversion | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | and therefor a spec | 12:35 |
| jgilaber | I don't think we can store more than one value in an efficacy indicator | 12:36 |
| jgilaber | we would need to add additional ones | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | its a list i belive | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | lets look at the api ref | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://docs.openstack.org/api-ref/resource-optimization/#show-action-plan | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | so efficacy_indicators is an array of indcators | 12:37 |
| sean-k-mooney | and that can have multiple values which we did fix in watcher-dashboard to display properly | 12:38 |
| dviroel | which was fixed in the ui too, I think that was amoralej that fixed | 12:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep | 12:38 |
| amoralej | yes, but the problem here is that the list of metrics considered is configurable | 12:38 |
| amoralej | and, iiuc, we have one deviation per-metric | 12:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | thats ok | 12:38 |
| amoralej | os it'd be deviation_before_cpu deviation_before_memory, etc... ? | 12:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | in the api ref the indictors in the efficacy_indicators is not part of the schema | 12:39 |
| amoralej | is that how it works? | 12:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | im not sure i think we need more info in the bug | 12:39 |
| sean-k-mooney | specificly we need the raw api responce | 12:39 |
| amoralej | there is also a weight parameter for the metrics, so i assumed the different deviation were aggregated somehow | 12:40 |
| sean-k-mooney | not how its rendedd in the client but what is actully beign returned when there are multiple metrics | 12:40 |
| amoralej | yes ^ that | 12:40 |
| jgilaber | it simply stores the first deviation that is larger than the trheshold | 12:40 |
| jgilaber | https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/c4acce91d6bb87b4ab865bc8e4d442a148dba1d5/watcher/decision_engine/strategy/strategies/workload_stabilization.py#L461 | 12:40 |
| amoralej | and do the optimization based on only the first metric is above it? | 12:41 |
| jgilaber | it iterates over the metrics and the first time one goes over the threshold it returns | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | that seam incorreect | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | unless megrics is a preferenically orderd list | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | so this is starting to grow out of the scope of a simple bug | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | and into a feature | 12:42 |
| amoralej | ah, so the weight is only considered for the simulation, not for the initial deviation found https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/c4acce91d6bb87b4ab865bc8e4d442a148dba1d5/watcher/decision_engine/strategy/strategies/workload_stabilization.py#L423 | 12:42 |
| amoralej | that's strange, tbh ... | 12:42 |
| jgilaber | there is nothing in the metrics description that suggests it should be sorted by importance https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/master/watcher/decision_engine/strategy/strategies/workload_stabilization.py#L107 | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: i was ok with treatign this as a bug if it was only a infromational change | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | but if its goign to chagne the behvior fo the stagey | 12:44 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher stable/2025.1: Drop sg_core prometheus related vars https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/946737 | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | then i think this is creapign into a spec | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | or at least something | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | that need more dicussionthetn we can do right now | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | shall we loop back to this again next week | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | and think about it a bit more. | 12:44 |
| dviroel | sure | 12:44 |
| jgilaber | agreed, I did not intend to change the strategy behaviour with my bug, initially I just noticed the UX | 12:45 |
| jgilaber | +1 | 12:45 |
| amoralej | it may be correct, but at least, i'd like to understand better how that works to drive expectations | 12:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: if you can you use --debug on openstack client to attach the raw api output to the bug if you have time | 12:45 |
| jgilaber | sure, I'll do that | 12:45 |
| dviroel | thanks for raising that jgilaber | 12:46 |
| jgilaber | sean-k-mooney: which output, the action plan? | 12:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | the action plan show yes | 12:46 |
| jgilaber | ack, will do after the mtg | 12:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | i want to see if the api responce and the cli output align | 12:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | we may be truncating the output or rounding in the clint | 12:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | but in general i just want to see the actual repsocne | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | shall we move on? | 12:47 |
| dviroel | sure, ok, the next 2 bugs we already discussed at the ptg | 12:47 |
| dviroel | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2106407 (Action Plans status is wrongly reported when Actions fail) | 12:47 |
| dviroel | it was missing status | 12:47 |
| amoralej | i set it as triaged | 12:47 |
| dviroel | thanks amoralej | 12:47 |
| amoralej | as we discussed it in ptg | 12:48 |
| dviroel | next | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep and i agree with it beign high also | 12:48 |
| amoralej | i plan to work on it but didn't have the time for it | 12:48 |
| dviroel | +1 | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack | 12:48 |
| dviroel | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2104220 (NovaClusterDataModelCollector cache generate wrong action plan) | 12:48 |
| dviroel | we also discussed at the ptg | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya so we still need ot confirm if we are lookign at the wrong field | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | i.e. saving the sourc host instead of the dest | 12:49 |
| dviroel | yes, we need to check the nova notification to see if that is working as expected | 12:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | i just set this to high also | 12:49 |
| dviroel | i was planning to validate in my env too | 12:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | since this is the primary way we update the cache | 12:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | that would be good if you have time | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | this may have been a regression in nova | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | i.e. we coudl have changed when that event got sent | 12:50 |
| dviroel | so I will assign to myself for now, unless someone is already looking at it | 12:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | we did do that a few release ago but its been long enoguh that if that was the cause we likely should just update wathcer | 12:50 |
| amoralej | to be clear, we'd totally fix the issue with models out of sync if we have nova notifications enabled (and we don't have a bug in the model update logic) ? | 12:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | we have the notifcation enabled | 12:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that not the problem | 12:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | the problem is the filed we are updatign form seams to have the source host not the destination | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | which is what we were expecting | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | so the bug is either in how we are parsing the notification and updatign the model | 12:52 |
| amoralej | i don't mean for that particular bug, but about the expected behavior of watcher. Having nova notifications enabled should ensure watcher is always correct? | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | or nvoa acidently change the behavior a few cycle ago and noone noticed | 12:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: in general yes | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: that is the recommend way to deploy watcher | 12:53 |
| amoralej | good | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | i say in general as there is a short interval | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | where we wont have processed the notificaion yet | 12:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | btu its much smaller then relying only on the periodic | 12:54 |
| amoralej | tbh, i had missed that update based on notifications ... | 12:54 |
| amoralej | sure | 12:54 |
| amoralej | that is much better | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | downstream we skiped enabling it becuase notificaon are not supproted in our new installer yet | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | specificly in nova | 12:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | so we will also need to supprot that in our new installer once that gap is closed | 12:54 |
| amoralej | from performance pov, enabling notifications, is it expensive? | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | devstafck does it by defualt | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | kind of | 12:55 |
| amoralej | ack | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | it puts a lot of extra load on rabbit | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | its actully recomend to have a seperate rabbit service just for notificaions | 12:55 |
| amoralej | no need to go into details now, we are almost out of time, but thanks for the clarification | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | btu the bigger issue | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | is if there is no consumer | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | the rabbit queue builds forever | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | and just fills up ram | 12:56 |
| dviroel | ++ | 12:56 |
| dviroel | ok, we don't have too much time to cover the next 2 bugs in the list | 12:56 |
| dviroel | so moving them to the next meeting | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | i do have one to highlight | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2108855 | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | this is a feature request nto an actual bug | 12:56 |
| dviroel | ack, sean-k-mooney i was reading through | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | unfotully we did not discss this in the ptg | 12:57 |
| dviroel | we can recommend everybody to read this LP bug | 12:57 |
| amoralej | ok, so it should not be too hard based on the proposed implementation in observabilityclient | 12:57 |
| dviroel | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2108855 (Watcher should include keystone session when creating PrometheusAPICLient) | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | the tldr is the openstack telemetry team are proposing to add a auth reverse proxy for providing multi tenancy on top of prometheus | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | this is a non tivial change even if the code is small | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | and normally this is a classing exampel of where a spec woudl be reuired because it has supprot implication for testing and upgrade | 12:58 |
| amoralej | in case the session has admin role it will return data for all tenants? | 12:58 |
| amoralej | (i hope so) ... | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that is one of the design questiosn we need to resolve | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | otherwise we shoudl not suprpot this | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | but yes i belive that is the intet | 12:59 |
| dviroel | right, so we should bring back this topic to the next meeting | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | lets reach out to jaromir | 12:59 |
| dviroel | about next meeting | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | and see if they can attend next week | 12:59 |
| dviroel | #topic chair next meetings | 13:00 |
| dviroel | i will be out next week, due to holiday | 13:00 |
| dviroel | not sure about others | 13:00 |
| dviroel | we need someone to chair | 13:00 |
| amoralej | next thursday/friday are local holiday here | 13:00 |
| jgilaber | +1 next week is a holiday for me as well | 13:00 |
| dviroel | yeah | 13:01 |
| mtembo | It's a holiday for me too | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack | 13:01 |
| dviroel | i will let rlandy decide about cancelling or not | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | we can skip next week | 13:01 |
| amoralej | maybe we should cancel it | 13:01 |
| dviroel | but I think that we should skip | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | if we do not have quoram | 13:01 |
| dviroel | ack | 13:01 |
| rlandy | if enough people are out - yeah | 13:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: can you send a 2 line message to the list jsut declaring it skipped | 13:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think we have 4 peopel that will not be here at least | 13:02 |
| dviroel | #action dviroel to cancel next meeting (ML email) | 13:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that over half the normal attendes | 13:02 |
| dviroel | ack | 13:02 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher stable/2025.1: Query by fqdn_label instead of instance for host metrics https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/946153 | 13:02 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher stable/2025.1: Aggregate by fqdn label instead instance in host cpu metrics https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/946732 | 13:02 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher stable/2024.2: Replace deprecated LegacyEngineFacade https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/942909 | 13:02 |
| dviroel | we are out of time | 13:02 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher stable/2024.2: Further database refactoring https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/942910 | 13:02 |
| dviroel | thanks for joinning all | 13:02 |
| dviroel | #endmeeting | 13:02 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu Apr 24 13:02:58 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 13:02 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2025/watcher.2025-04-24-12.00.html | 13:02 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2025/watcher.2025-04-24-12.00.txt | 13:02 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher/2025/watcher.2025-04-24-12.00.log.html | 13:02 |
| dviroel | a merge party | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | :) | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | im going to do some more stabel reviews before my next meeting but the ci shoudl be unblocked again | 13:03 |
| dviroel | ++ | 13:04 |
| sean-k-mooney | by the way i have a patch that i would liek to get peopes input on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948034 that swap our code formater form autopep8 to ruff i have reasosn to want to do that but im undecieded if the impact on thet code is to much to proceed with | 13:05 |
| sean-k-mooney | i know why the ci jobs are failign so ignore that for now | 13:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | i more want input form folks on "is this too ugly?" and how we feel about the backprot impact | 13:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | to me it ends up being net neutral there are some part of ruff/black formatign that i hate but it does make the code much mroe consitent and we never need ot arguabe about "style" | 13:07 |
| sean-k-mooney | so as a very low priority ask please take a look and let me knwo how you feel about this | 13:08 |
| dviroel | ok, i will take a look | 13:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | the reason i am brigning this up is i intened to use it for the new repo ill be creating for the horizon plugin for metrics form day 1 | 13:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | and im consdiering if we want to also apply ruff to all teh watcher repos. but there is a slightly differnet calculs for new vers existing repos with doing that | 13:24 |
| sean-k-mooney | i belvie we need to updat the verion of autopep8 to supprot py3.13 too althotugh that might only be required for nova | 13:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think its usign an older version then i added to watcher | 13:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | so thats the other reason this was on my mind | 13:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | we have not started adding 3.13 support yet but its somethign we shoudl start this cycle | 13:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | ah ya 3.13 support is added in v2.3.2 https://github.com/hhatto/autopep8/releases/tag/v2.3.2 | 13:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | and im pinning to 2.3.1 https://github.com/openstack/watcher/blob/master/.pre-commit-config.yaml#L42-L46 | 13:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that the other way to fix it just bump that | 13:31 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher stable/2024.1: Replace deprecated LegacyEngineFacade https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/942914 | 13:52 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher stable/2024.1: Further database refactoring https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/942915 | 13:55 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: Make prometheus the default devstack example https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/945331 | 14:06 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher stable/2025.1: Skip real-data tests in non-real-data jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948089 | 15:00 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher stable/2025.1: Skip real-data tests in non-real-data jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948089 | 15:02 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher stable/2024.2: Skip real-data tests in non-real-data jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948090 | 15:08 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher stable/2024.1: Replace deprecated LegacyEngineFacade https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/942914 | 15:12 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher stable/2024.1: Further database refactoring https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/942915 | 15:12 |
| opendevreview | Alfredo Moralejo proposed openstack/watcher stable/2024.1: Skip real-data tests in non-real-data jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948092 | 15:12 |
| amoralej | ^ I'm just backporting the skip of real-data tests, as i think there is no much point in adding real-data job in experimental or periodic pipelines for stable branches, but let me know if you want me to proceed in a different way | 15:15 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: the first patch shoudl have stabel only and it should be cherrypicked as need | 15:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | so those are not folowing stable policy | 15:27 |
| amoralej | you mean https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948089 to be marked as stable-only, right? | 15:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh you kind of have that | 15:27 |
| amoralej | yeah | 15:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | i opened the same linke twice | 15:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | ah you updated the 2025.1 linek twice | 15:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | that whic i got confused | 15:28 |
| amoralej | yeah, i added extra blank line in first PS, sorry | 15:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | dont be sorry i just was trying to see if there were propsoed correctly. | 15:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok those look mostly fine ill appove them as tehy merge on the newer branches over then next few days | 15:33 |
| amoralej | thanks! | 15:41 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher stable/2025.1: Skip real-data tests in non-real-data jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948089 | 16:36 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/watcher stable/2024.2: Skip real-data tests in non-real-data jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/948090 | 18:22 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!