| *** k_mouza has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 00:17 | |
| *** k_mouza has quit IRC | 00:22 | |
| *** enriquetaso has quit IRC | 00:45 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 01:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 01:16 | |
| *** igordc has quit IRC | 01:23 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 01:25 | |
| *** Liang__ has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 01:52 | |
| *** hamzy has quit IRC | 01:56 | |
| *** hamzy has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 01:56 | |
| *** rnoriega_ has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 02:05 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 02:19 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 03:08 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 03:11 | |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 03:15 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 03:16 | |
| *** links has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 03:18 | |
| *** Liang__ has quit IRC | 04:09 | |
| *** k_mouza has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 04:18 | |
| *** k_mouza has quit IRC | 04:22 | |
| *** Liang__ has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 04:33 | |
| *** Liang__ has quit IRC | 04:38 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 05:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 05:15 | |
| *** k_mouza has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 06:18 | |
| *** k_mouza has quit IRC | 06:23 | |
| *** gcheresh_ has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 06:26 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 07:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 07:15 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 07:56 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 08:57 | |
| *** ralonsoh has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 08:59 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 09:27 | |
| *** dviroel has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 10:30 | |
| *** psachin has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 10:35 | |
| *** pcaruana has quit IRC | 10:57 | |
| *** psachin has quit IRC | 11:18 | |
| *** pcaruana has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 11:40 | |
| *** anastzhyr has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 12:22 | |
| *** salmankhan has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 12:23 | |
| *** links has quit IRC | 12:24 | |
| *** enriquetaso has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 12:50 | |
| *** ktibi has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 13:13 | |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 13:32 | |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 13:33 | |
| *** bobmel has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 13:46 | |
| *** bobmel has quit IRC | 13:51 | |
| *** rishabhhpe has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 13:52 | |
| *** Liang__ has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 13:53 | |
| *** Liang__ is now known as LiangFang | 13:53 | |
| rosmaita | Courtesy reminder: Cinder meeting in #openstack-meeting-4 at 1400 UTC | 13:59 |
|---|---|---|
| rosmaita | jungleboyj rosmaita smcginnis tosky whoami-rajat m5z e0ne geguileo eharney walshh_ jbernard ^^ | 13:59 |
| m5z | hi =] | 13:59 |
| ttx | o/ | 13:59 |
| *** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 13:59 | |
| *** sfernand has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 14:00 | |
| rosmaita | #startmeeting cinder | 14:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Jan 29 14:00:03 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rosmaita. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: cinder)" | 14:00 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'cinder' | 14:00 |
| rosmaita | #topic roll call | 14:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "roll call (Meeting topic: cinder)" | 14:00 | |
| lseki | hi | 14:00 |
| eharney | hey | 14:00 |
| LiangFang | hi | 14:00 |
| rosmaita | greetings thierry | 14:00 |
| rosmaita | #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-ussuri-meetings | 14:00 |
| ttx | hi! just lurking :) | 14:01 |
| *** raghavendrat has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 14:01 | |
| whoami-rajat | Hi | 14:01 |
| raghavendrat | hi | 14:01 |
| sfernand | hi | 14:01 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 14:01 |
| rosmaita | looks like a good turnout | 14:01 |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 14:01 | |
| rosmaita | #topic announcements | 14:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "announcements (Meeting topic: cinder)" | 14:01 | |
| tosky | o/ | 14:01 |
| *** smcginnis_ has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 14:01 | |
| rosmaita | i've been meaning to mention that you may have noticed, that i'm not as good as jay was about keeping notes in the agenda etherpad | 14:02 |
| rosmaita | so if you miss a meeting and want to know what went on | 14:02 |
| rosmaita | you need to look at the meeting log | 14:02 |
| rosmaita | otherwise, you may think nothing happened! | 14:02 |
| rosmaita | ok, first real announcement | 14:03 |
| jungleboyj | :-) I can try to get back to doing notes. | 14:03 |
| rosmaita | #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-ussuri-meetings | 14:03 |
| rosmaita | that wasn't what i meant | 14:03 |
| enriquetaso | o/ | 14:03 |
| rosmaita | rocky goes to "extended maintenance" status next month | 14:03 |
| smcginnis_ | I think the meeting logs are the best. Especially with the use of #action, #info, etc. | 14:03 |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis_: :-) | 14:03 |
| whoami-rajat | jay for notes ++ | 14:03 |
| rosmaita | yeah, jungleboyj i'd kind of like to push people to using the meeting logs | 14:04 |
| rosmaita | ok but about rocky going to EM ... | 14:04 |
| rosmaita | final release must happen before 24 February | 14:04 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: Ok. Sounds good. | 14:04 |
| enriquetaso | you are doing great rosmaita | 14:04 |
| rosmaita | doesn't look like there are any/many outstanding patches for rocky | 14:04 |
| enriquetaso | :P | 14:04 |
| whoami-rajat | rosmaita, i think one is mine | 14:04 |
| rosmaita | so this is really a notice that if there *is* something that looks like it should be backported, please propose it soon | 14:04 |
| rosmaita | whoami-rajat: right, i will keep an eye on that one | 14:05 |
| whoami-rajat | rosmaita, thanks | 14:05 |
| rosmaita | so we'll do the final rocky release 20 Feb | 14:06 |
| rosmaita | second announcement: | 14:06 |
| rosmaita | spec freeze on Friday 31 January (must be merged by 23:59 UTC) | 14:06 |
| rosmaita | that's this friday | 14:06 |
| kaisers | hi | 14:06 |
| rosmaita | looks like we have 3 specs still in play for ussuri | 14:06 |
| rosmaita | they are on the agenda later | 14:07 |
| rosmaita | #topic Continued discussion about 3rd Party CI | 14:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Continued discussion about 3rd Party CI (Meeting topic: cinder)" | 14:07 | |
| rosmaita | thanks to jungleboyj for keeping on top of this | 14:07 |
| rosmaita | jungleboyj: you have the floor | 14:07 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 14:07 |
| jungleboyj | Thanks. So, we started this topic last week and it seemed we needed to continue the discussion this week. | 14:08 |
| jungleboyj | Or actually I guess it was during the virtual mid-cycle. | 14:08 |
| rosmaita | last week as well | 14:08 |
| LiangFang | :) | 14:08 |
| jungleboyj | Anyway, I sent an e-mail to the mailing list and also targeted the CI e-mails for failing vendors. | 14:09 |
| jungleboyj | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-January/012151.html | 14:09 |
| jungleboyj | We got some responses as you can see in the etherpad. | 14:09 |
| raghavendrat | hi, i am from HPE. we are trying to bring up our CI | 14:09 |
| rosmaita | raghavendrat: that is good to hear | 14:09 |
| raghavendrat | its in progress | 14:09 |
| jungleboyj | raghavendrat: Awesome. | 14:09 |
| jungleboyj | Thank you for being here. | 14:09 |
| jungleboyj | Thanks to ttx for working with the OSF to reach out to vendors as well. | 14:10 |
| jungleboyj | So, the additional drivers to be unsupported has shrunk. | 14:10 |
| jungleboyj | The question that is left, however, is what do we do now? | 14:11 |
| jungleboyj | Do we need to re-address what we are doing with 3rd Party CI? | 14:11 |
| rosmaita | we had floated the idea last week about maybe just unsupporting but not removing drivers | 14:11 |
| rosmaita | i think smcginnis had a good point that you can't do that for very long | 14:11 |
| rosmaita | as libraries get updated, you will start to get failures | 14:12 |
| jungleboyj | True. We are at the point that we have unsupported/removed nearly half the drivers over the last couple of releases. | 14:12 |
| rishabhhpe | Hi , I am from HPE , we are trying to setup for CI .. but facing some difficulties . is there any documentation available or a automated scripts to bring the setup in a single shot ? | 14:12 |
| rosmaita | i am hoping the Software Factory project may help with CI | 14:12 |
| smcginnis_ | An alternative being that we could move them to a different repo with a noop CI job. | 14:13 |
| ttx | yeah, only keep CI-tested oens in mainline, and use a separate repo for everything else | 14:14 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: We someone working on setting up an example of how to use that? | 14:14 |
| rosmaita | rishabhhpe: take a look at https://softwarefactory-project.io/docs/index.html | 14:14 |
| ttx | The current doc is certainly lacking | 14:14 |
| *** eharney has left #openstack-meeting-4 | 14:14 | |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis_: It seems keeping them somewhere is somewhat better than totally removing. | 14:15 |
| e0ne | hi | 14:15 |
| rosmaita | jungleboyj: tosky was speaking with someone in the cinder channel the other day about it | 14:15 |
| *** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 14:15 | |
| rosmaita | i forget who though, but they were setting up a cinder CI | 14:15 |
| smcginnis_ | jungleboyj: Then if a distro wants to include them: "apt install openstack-cinder openstack-cinder-unsupported-drivers" | 14:15 |
| jungleboyj | Ok. So, that is an option. | 14:16 |
| tosky | I just jumped in a discussion started by rosmaita :) | 14:16 |
| tosky | smcginnis_: you don't need to move them into a separate repository for distributions to split the packages | 14:16 |
| rosmaita | basically, for the Software Factory situation, we need someone to actually set it up for cinder and then report back | 14:16 |
| whoami-rajat | it was Hitachi i guess rosmaita tosky | 14:17 |
| smcginnis_ | tosky: Effect, not cause. ;) | 14:17 |
| rosmaita | there is a community around Software FActory, and RDO is using it for CI, so it is pretty solid | 14:17 |
| rishabhhpe | <rosmaita> : ok | 14:17 |
| rosmaita | whoami-rajat: ty, that's right, it was Hitachi | 14:17 |
| tosky | smcginnis_: moving code around complicates the usage of the history; my suggestion would be to keep them in-tree and mark them somehow with some annotation | 14:17 |
| smcginnis_ | tosky: That's what we have today. | 14:18 |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis_: ++ | 14:18 |
| smcginnis_ | The issue raised is that will eventually break. | 14:18 |
| rosmaita | i guess we could blacklist them from tests? | 14:18 |
| tosky | smcginnis_ but with removals part | 14:18 |
| smcginnis_ | So the options are either to remove them completely, or move them somewhere out of the way. | 14:18 |
| eharney | putting drivers in a separate repo also means you have to figure out how to keep dependencies in sync, or nobody will actually be able to install the unsupported drivers | 14:18 |
| smcginnis_ | eharney: Yeah, it just moves the problem really. | 14:18 |
| jungleboyj | :-( | 14:18 |
| jungleboyj | And since the vendors aren't maintaining them then it is unlikely anyone is going to do that work. | 14:19 |
| e0ne | jungleboyj: +1 | 14:20 |
| m5z | maybe we could move to unsupported list and when any dependency fails remove it? | 14:20 |
| tosky | smcginnis_: wouldn't it be possible to disable the setuptools entry points (if they are used; at least for sahara we used them) | 14:20 |
| tosky | IMHO, and from the past experience with sahara, either everything should stay in-tree as it is, or each driver should have its own repository from the start | 14:20 |
| tosky | any other solution is looking for troubles :) | 14:20 |
| smcginnis_ | m5z: Was just thinking that. | 14:20 |
| smcginnis_ | That might be a good compromise. | 14:20 |
| rosmaita | m5z: that is a good idea | 14:21 |
| rosmaita | i'd prefer to just have one repo | 14:21 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: ++ | 14:21 |
| smcginnis_ | But then it's a fire and we can't wait to see if they get an update to any dependencies. | 14:21 |
| smcginnis_ | But probably better than just nuking them right away. | 14:21 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 14:21 |
| rosmaita | maybe we could have unsupported -> unit test failures -> removal before next release | 14:22 |
| lseki | ++ | 14:22 |
| rosmaita | we would blacklist as soon as we hit unit test failures | 14:22 |
| smcginnis_ | We couldn't do removal before next release. | 14:22 |
| sfernand | ++ | 14:22 |
| smcginnis_ | It would have to be removal before we can merge anything else because suddenly the gate it borked. | 14:23 |
| jungleboyj | Yeah. | 14:23 |
| rosmaita | if we blacklisted the tests, wouldn't that unblock the gate? | 14:23 |
| jungleboyj | So, it goes away in that release, but that is ok because it was already unsupported. | 14:23 |
| smcginnis_ | rosmaita: So add a SkipTest to get around it right away, then remove by ~milestone-3 if not fixed? | 14:24 |
| smcginnis_ | I think I'd rather just remove it at that point. | 14:24 |
| jungleboyj | Yeah, not sure the value of delaying the removal. | 14:24 |
| rosmaita | well, the skip test would give them a final few weeks to get it done | 14:24 |
| smcginnis_ | They can always propose a revert if dependencies are fixed, but considering it is already unsupported, that's not likely. | 14:25 |
| jungleboyj | Fair enough. | 14:25 |
| m5z | smcginnis_: +1 | 14:25 |
| rosmaita | ok, so we would remove an unsupported driver from the tree immediately upon it causing test failures in the gate | 14:26 |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis_: That is like what we are currently doing. | 14:26 |
| smcginnis_ | jungleboyj: We wouldn't remove it the cycle after marking unsupported though. | 14:27 |
| smcginnis_ | Only as soon as it starts causing failures. | 14:27 |
| eharney | i think in a lot of cases we can opt to just fix the failing tests ourselves -- this is part of why it's useful to keep them in the tree | 14:27 |
| smcginnis_ | That might be an option is its something trivial. | 14:27 |
| rosmaita | we could keep that as an unadvertised option | 14:28 |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis_: eharney ++ | 14:28 |
| eharney | yeah | 14:28 |
| rosmaita | alright, this sounds good ... i will write up something for us to look at before we announce this | 14:28 |
| rosmaita | but it think it's a good direction | 14:29 |
| smcginnis_ | Soooo... if we adopt this policy, are we going to revert some of the removals we've already done? | 14:29 |
| ttx | I see a lot of value in the CI we run ourselves (for "open source software" drivers). I'm unsure of the real value of 3rd-party CI for us. It's really a service for the vendors, to help them check they are not broken by changes | 14:29 |
| rosmaita | smcginnis_: foos uwarion | 14:29 |
| ttx | So i'm unsure we should support or unsupport them based on availability of CI | 14:29 |
| rosmaita | did not mean to say that | 14:29 |
| smcginnis_ | ttx: It's also good for the project as a whole as it prevents cases where someone installs cinder and has a lot of trouble getting it to run. | 14:29 |
| smcginnis_ | That looks just as bad for cinder as it does for the vendor. | 14:30 |
| ttx | smcginnis_: assuming that the 3rd-party CI actually tests the driver | 14:30 |
| smcginnis_ | Sometimes more so, because they think it's cinder's problem, not the vendors problem. | 14:30 |
| smcginnis_ | ttx: Yes, but that's what I'm saying. | 14:30 |
| rosmaita | yeah, i would prefer to keep 3rd party CI | 14:30 |
| smcginnis_ | We need 3rd party CI, or we need to remove non-open drivers from tree. | 14:31 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: It is at least an indication that the vendor is engaged. | 14:31 |
| ttx | yeah | 14:31 |
| rosmaita | smcginnis_: i guess we should consider re-instating the drivers removed during this cycle | 14:31 |
| jungleboyj | And I think that there should be some incentive to stay engaged. | 14:31 |
| *** anastzhyr has quit IRC | 14:31 | |
| ttx | those are the two options. But I'd say the more difficult we make 3rdparty CI, the less likely it is to report useful results | 14:31 |
| smcginnis_ | It's been a constant headache, but as a whole, I think our 3rd party CI has been useful. | 14:32 |
| rosmaita | ttx: that is why we are pushing Software Factory | 14:32 |
| ttx | So the two options really are... simplify 3rd-party CI setup, or remove drivers that require special hardware from the tree | 14:32 |
| jungleboyj | Well, that is the thing being worked in parallel is making 3rd Party CI easier. | 14:32 |
| ttx | rosmaita: I agree, just trying to reframe why :) | 14:32 |
| smcginnis_ | It certainly can be simple: https://github.com/j-griffith/sos-ci | 14:33 |
| smcginnis_ | Just everyone wants to duplicate how infra works. | 14:33 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 14:33 |
| jungleboyj | I thought at some point infra was pushing people to do that? | 14:33 |
| smcginnis_ | I don't think so. | 14:34 |
| smcginnis_ | This has been a headache for them too. | 14:34 |
| *** rishabhhpe has left #openstack-meeting-4 | 14:34 | |
| jungleboyj | Ok. Yeah, I was surprised when they came back with that. I was unaware. | 14:34 |
| rosmaita | ok, we need to wrap this up for today | 14:34 |
| smcginnis_ | Yeah, let's move along. | 14:34 |
| smcginnis_ | rosmaita: Want to summarize the plan? | 14:34 |
| rosmaita | i think we made some progress | 14:34 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: Please. | 14:35 |
| raghavendrat | one query: whats end date ... when drivers would be marked as uspported/removed ? | 14:35 |
| rosmaita | unsupported would be same as now | 14:35 |
| rosmaita | removal would be when first failure in our gate occurs | 14:35 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: ++ | 14:35 |
| rosmaita | i will write something up for us to review | 14:35 |
| smcginnis_ | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers#Non-Compliance_Policy | 14:36 |
| *** rishabhhpe has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 14:36 | |
| rosmaita | #action rosmaita write up summary of what we decided or edit ^^ | 14:36 |
| raghavendrat | ok. will have a look and also keep close watch | 14:36 |
| rosmaita | you may want to reach out to the hitachi people and combine efforts on Software Factory | 14:36 |
| jungleboyj | Sounds good. Should I revert the removals that I pushed up this cycle? | 14:37 |
| rosmaita | check the openstack-cinder channel log for yesterday | 14:37 |
| raghavendrat | ok | 14:37 |
| rosmaita | jungleboyj: i would hold off until after we are absolutely sure about this | 14:37 |
| rosmaita | (just in case someone thinks of a major objection we haven't considered) | 14:37 |
| smcginnis_ | Upgrade checkers too. | 14:37 |
| rosmaita | right | 14:37 |
| rosmaita | thanks jungleboyj and ttx | 14:38 |
| jungleboyj | Ok. So, continue discussion. | 14:38 |
| rosmaita | #topic Spec: Volume local cache | 14:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Spec: Volume local cache (Meeting topic: cinder)" | 14:38 | |
| LiangFang | hi | 14:38 |
| jungleboyj | Thank you guys. | 14:38 |
| rosmaita | #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/684556/ | 14:38 |
| LiangFang | should we do a microversion change for this? | 14:38 |
| rosmaita | my questions have been met except for the microversion one | 14:39 |
| rosmaita | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/684556/12/specs/ussuri/support-volume-local-cache.rst@180 | 14:39 |
| eharney | i'm not sure "volume details" is the right place for that information unless i'm misunderstanding what that refers to | 14:39 |
| eharney | it should be part of the connection info etc, not the volume metadata? | 14:39 |
| LiangFang | it is in connection info | 14:40 |
| rosmaita | well, the volume-type extra specs will have the cacheable property | 14:40 |
| LiangFang | cinder fill the fields in that | 14:40 |
| eharney | "volume details" sounds like it would appear on "cinder show" etc | 14:40 |
| rosmaita | yes, that's how it sounded to me | 14:41 |
| LiangFang | sorry for misleading | 14:41 |
| LiangFang | should I change the word "volume details", then keep microversion not change? | 14:42 |
| rosmaita | yes | 14:42 |
| LiangFang | ok, thanks | 14:43 |
| rosmaita | no microversion impact if the API response doesn't change | 14:43 |
| rosmaita | ok, other than that, i think eharney and geguileo had a bunch of comments on earlier versions of the spec | 14:43 |
| LiangFang | ok | 14:43 |
| rosmaita | would be good if you could make sure the current version addresses your concerns | 14:44 |
| rosmaita | LiangFang: did you have any questions? | 14:44 |
| LiangFang | no more questions now:) thanks | 14:45 |
| rosmaita | ok, great | 14:45 |
| rosmaita | #topic src_backup_id | 14:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "src_backup_id (Meeting topic: cinder)" | 14:45 | |
| rosmaita | #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/700977/ | 14:45 |
| rosmaita | this is close to being done | 14:45 |
| rosmaita | we talked last week about could it be a bug instead of a spec | 14:46 |
| smcginnis_ | Yeah, I still think this should just be dropped as a spec. Just add it. | 14:46 |
| rosmaita | but eric brought up a point about us using volume metadata for the field | 14:46 |
| rosmaita | i think that needs to be documented | 14:46 |
| rosmaita | mainly, that operators can't rely on it being there or accurate | 14:46 |
| rosmaita | but otherwise, i think the proposal is fine | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | also there was an issue about which id is used for incrementals | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | it's addressed in the spec | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | so, this will just need quick reviews once it's revised | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | but i don't think there's anything controversial | 14:48 |
| rosmaita | #topic Spec: 'fault' info in volume-show response | 14:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Spec: 'fault' info in volume-show response (Meeting topic: cinder)" | 14:48 | |
| rosmaita | #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/689977/ | 14:48 |
| rosmaita | this is probably not ready | 14:48 |
| rosmaita | it's still not clear why the user messages won't work | 14:49 |
| rosmaita | and i don't like the idea of adding another DB table until we are sure it's necessary | 14:49 |
| eharney | yeah, i still don't have a sense of why we want to add this when we already have a system that attempts to mostly do the same thing | 14:49 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 14:49 |
| eharney | there are probably some subtle differences but i suspect the answer is to just improve what we have rather than creating a new API for this | 14:50 |
| rosmaita | eharney: ++ | 14:50 |
| rosmaita | i will keep an eye on it for revisions | 14:50 |
| whoami-rajat | seems like it's inspired by nova instances having 'fault' property | 14:50 |
| rosmaita | yes, it's just not clear to me that it's going to provide the info the proposer is looking for | 14:51 |
| eharney | we currently have a scheme that ties faults to operations rather than the object being acted on | 14:51 |
| eharney | it's different, but seems to work well | 14:51 |
| eharney | if you want something like nova faults you can query our user messages by volume id already | 14:51 |
| rosmaita | well, i left enough comments asking for specific answers for what exactly can't be done | 14:52 |
| rosmaita | so we'll see what happens | 14:52 |
| whoami-rajat | yep, agreed. it's different but works | 14:52 |
| rosmaita | #topic sqlalchemy update to 1.3.13 breaks cinder | 14:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "sqlalchemy update to 1.3.13 breaks cinder (Meeting topic: cinder)" | 14:52 | |
| rosmaita | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-January/012210.html | 14:52 |
| rosmaita | ok, so the situation is that one of our unit tests fails | 14:53 |
| rosmaita | i took a look, but it turns out what we're doing in the test *only* happens in that test | 14:53 |
| rosmaita | so we could fix this by just changing the test | 14:53 |
| rosmaita | or by slightly modifying the db.sqlalchemy.api | 14:53 |
| rosmaita | i am inclined to just change the test at this point | 14:54 |
| rosmaita | because the db api change loads the glance metadata into each volume object | 14:54 |
| eharney | geguileo fixed some DetachedInstanceError problems a while ago, i wonder if this is a similar bug in our objects code that is just being revealed in tests now | 14:54 |
| rosmaita | that could be | 14:55 |
| *** anastzhyr has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 14:55 | |
| rosmaita | most of the time when we want the glance info, we just make a call to get it, we don't expect it in the volume object | 14:55 |
| rosmaita | i'll grep the logs for geguileo's fix and see whether it's the same kind of thing | 14:56 |
| rosmaita | because i guess we'd do the same fix now to be consistent | 14:56 |
| rosmaita | ok, i'll take a look and then update my patch | 14:57 |
| geguileo | the issue is usually us trying to do a lazy load when we no longer have the transaction in place... | 14:57 |
| rosmaita | i'm not sure how anxious the requirements team is to get sqlalchemy 1.3.13 into u-c | 14:57 |
| geguileo | it works if it happens fast enough, but that's not usually the case iirc | 14:57 |
| rosmaita | maybe that's why it's suddenly broken | 14:58 |
| rosmaita | they may have optimized some code | 14:58 |
| rosmaita | and now it can't happen fast enough | 14:58 |
| geguileo | in other words, it's usually bad code in cinder, something that could happen in a production env | 14:58 |
| rosmaita | as far as i can tell, this particular pattern is only used in that one unit test | 14:59 |
| whoami-rajat | i think the bot automatically updates u-c when a lib is released. | 14:59 |
| whoami-rajat | i mean puts up a patch for it | 14:59 |
| rosmaita | looks like we are out of time | 14:59 |
| rosmaita | thanks everyone! will try to have some open discussion next week | 15:00 |
| jungleboyj | Thanks! | 15:00 |
| whoami-rajat | thanks! | 15:00 |
| rosmaita | but the CI discussion was helpful | 15:00 |
| raghavendrat | thanks | 15:00 |
| rosmaita | #endmeeting | 15:00 |
| lseki | thanks | 15:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/" | 15:00 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Jan 29 15:00:27 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 15:00 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2020/cinder.2020-01-29-14.00.html | 15:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2020/cinder.2020-01-29-14.00.txt | 15:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2020/cinder.2020-01-29-14.00.log.html | 15:00 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: Yeah, thank you for making time for it. | 15:00 |
| rosmaita | well, it's pretty important! | 15:00 |
| m5z | cya! | 15:01 |
| enriquetaso | bye | 15:03 |
| *** raghavendrat has left #openstack-meeting-4 | 15:04 | |
| *** tosky has left #openstack-meeting-4 | 15:11 | |
| *** gcheresh_ has quit IRC | 15:42 | |
| *** eharney has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** ktibi has quit IRC | 16:29 | |
| *** ktibi has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 16:30 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:34 | |
| *** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 16:51 | |
| *** ktibi has quit IRC | 16:57 | |
| *** ktibi has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 16:57 | |
| *** bnemec-ooo has quit IRC | 17:00 | |
| *** bobmel has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 17:02 | |
| *** ktibi has quit IRC | 17:04 | |
| *** ktibi has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 17:06 | |
| *** smcginnis_ has quit IRC | 17:10 | |
| *** anastzhyr has quit IRC | 17:11 | |
| *** bobmel has quit IRC | 17:19 | |
| *** bobmel has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 17:19 | |
| *** enriquetaso has quit IRC | 17:20 | |
| *** enriquetaso has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 17:21 | |
| *** salmankhan has quit IRC | 17:51 | |
| *** michael-beaver has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 18:10 | |
| *** rishabhhpe has quit IRC | 18:31 | |
| *** rishabhhpe has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 18:36 | |
| *** eharney has quit IRC | 18:38 | |
| *** rishabhhpe has quit IRC | 18:41 | |
| *** benj_ has quit IRC | 18:47 | |
| *** benj_ has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 18:47 | |
| *** ralonsoh has quit IRC | 18:47 | |
| *** gcheresh_ has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 18:48 | |
| *** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 18:51 | |
| *** igordc has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 19:02 | |
| *** eharney has quit IRC | 19:26 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 19:34 | |
| *** gcheresh_ has quit IRC | 19:35 | |
| *** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 19:39 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 19:39 | |
| *** eharney has quit IRC | 19:48 | |
| *** gmann is now known as gmann_afk | 19:57 | |
| *** anastzhyr has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 20:00 | |
| *** ktibi has quit IRC | 20:01 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 20:11 | |
| *** sfernand has quit IRC | 20:18 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:19 | |
| *** LiangFang has quit IRC | 20:19 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:22 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 20:23 | |
| *** rosmaita has left #openstack-meeting-4 | 20:30 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:54 | |
| *** eharney has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 21:03 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 21:03 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:09 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 21:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| *** gmann_afk is now known as gmann | 21:17 | |
| *** k_mouza has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 22:15 | |
| *** k_mouza has quit IRC | 22:19 | |
| *** enriquetaso has quit IRC | 22:22 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 22:23 | |
| *** ktibi has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 22:52 | |
| *** ktibi has quit IRC | 22:57 | |
| *** kaisers has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 23:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| *** kaisers has joined #openstack-meeting-4 | 23:23 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 23:24 | |
| *** dviroel has quit IRC | 23:30 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!