| *** haleyb is now known as haleyb|out | 00:31 | |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Show parameter spec in the strategy info page https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/960232 | 04:14 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: List strategies based on selected goal https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/960363 | 04:14 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add test for volume migrate with zone migration https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/958644 | 08:13 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Start and END time fields for continuous audit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/957232 | 08:56 |
| rlandy | hello all ... Watcher IRC Weekly meeting will be in 1.5 hours. Please add any topics to https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-watcher-irc-meeting#L38 | 10:30 |
| opendevreview | chandan kumar proposed openstack/watcher-dashboard master: Add Start and END time fields for continuous audit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/957232 | 10:43 |
| opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/watcher stable/2025.2: Add missing 1.6 API doc in rest version history https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/961625 | 11:32 |
| chandankumar | sean-k-mooney: dviroel please add these two reviews queue https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/957232 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-dashboard/+/960363 thank you! Few improvements to strategies. | 11:32 |
| opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add a scenario test with continuous audit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/954264 | 11:46 |
| opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add a scenario test with continuous audit https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/954264 | 11:47 |
| opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/watcher stable/2025.2: Add unit tests for instance and volume not found in model https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/961632 | 11:56 |
| opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/watcher stable/2025.2: Fix zone migration instance not found issue https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/961635 | 11:57 |
| rlandy | #startmeeting Watcher IRC Weekly Meeting - September 18, 2025 | 12:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu Sep 18 12:01:39 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rlandy. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 12:01 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 12:01 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'watcher_irc_weekly_meeting___september_18__2025' | 12:01 |
| rlandy | o/ ... who's around today? | 12:01 |
| morenod | o/ | 12:01 |
| amoralej | o/ | 12:02 |
| chandankumar | o/ | 12:02 |
| dviroel | o/ | 12:03 |
| jgilaber | o/ | 12:03 |
| rlandy | courtesy ping ... sean-k-mooney | 12:03 |
| rlandy | let's begin ... | 12:04 |
| rlandy | #topic: Announcements | 12:04 |
| rlandy | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/watcher-2026.1-ptg#L33 | 12:05 |
| rlandy | PTG topics | 12:05 |
| rlandy | we have quite a few already listed | 12:05 |
| rlandy | notice to add others if there are any | 12:05 |
| dviroel | oh nice, there is always new ones | 12:06 |
| rlandy | any questions/concerns about PTG? | 12:06 |
| dviroel | more info about PTG at | 12:07 |
| dviroel | #link https://openinfra.org/ptg/ | 12:07 |
| rlandy | moving on to the next announcement | 12:08 |
| rlandy | #topic: Core team updates | 12:08 |
| rlandy | removals, reminders, and new addition | 12:08 |
| dviroel | I just added this one, as follow up from previous meeting | 12:08 |
| rlandy | congrats jgilaber on new core status | 12:09 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney updated the teams, removed the members mentioned in the ML thread | 12:09 |
| dviroel | jgilaber++ | 12:09 |
| dviroel | welcome jgilaber | 12:09 |
| chandankumar | congratulations jgilaber | 12:10 |
| amoralej | jgilaber++ congrats! | 12:10 |
| jgilaber | thanks all! | 12:10 |
| rlandy | thanks sean-k-mooney and dviroel for taking care of these updates | 12:10 |
| rlandy | anything more for announcements? | 12:11 |
| rlandy | moving on ... | 12:12 |
| rlandy | #topic: reviews | 12:12 |
| rlandy | jgilaber, are those your reviews? | 12:12 |
| jgilaber | Two of the three are mine, the other is from amoralej | 12:12 |
| rlandy | some combination of jgilaber and amoralej - rights | 12:12 |
| jgilaber | I grouped the first two because they are related | 12:13 |
| rlandy | jgilaber, do you want to take this? otherwise we can go one by one? | 12:13 |
| jgilaber | They fix errors shown in the decision engine logs that are not actually problems | 12:13 |
| jgilaber | sure | 12:13 |
| rlandy | go4it | 12:13 |
| jgilaber | # link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/957441 | 12:14 |
| jgilaber | this one prevents an error when a cinder notification is processed but the storage model is not built (there is no storage audit) | 12:14 |
| dviroel | you can upgrade your vote there now :) | 12:14 |
| jgilaber | it's copying the same behaviour that the compute model has | 12:14 |
| amoralej | it can be your first +2 :) | 12:15 |
| jgilaber | dviroel, yes I just realized that I had +1 some time ago :) | 12:15 |
| * dviroel is going to take a look | 12:15 | |
| jgilaber | ack moving to the second | 12:16 |
| jgilaber | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/960265 | 12:16 |
| jgilaber | watcher assumes that all cinder drivers report the same attributes for fields, but this is wrong | 12:16 |
| jgilaber | since upstream we only test with lvms we have not noticed this, but when using other storage backends like nfs some fields like total_volumes are not reported | 12:17 |
| jgilaber | this patch adds a check in the code that builds the xml representation to avoid the error when a field is not present | 12:17 |
| jgilaber | and instead logs that it could not be found | 12:18 |
| jgilaber | this particular instance is not a problem when building a model but I opened a new bug for a different case where I think it prevents the model being built correctly | 12:19 |
| jgilaber | but I'm still working on that I'll bring that patch in another meeting | 12:19 |
| dviroel | ack | 12:19 |
| jgilaber | if there are no questions I can move the next one | 12:19 |
| amoralej | i think that's fine but, as related topic, we should try to reduce the models to contain only fields which are common to all backends | 12:19 |
| amoralej | anyway, that's a different topic | 12:20 |
| jgilaber | +1, I think we should do that in a followup | 12:20 |
| amoralej | +1 | 12:20 |
| dviroel | +1, it needs to be reviewed | 12:20 |
| jgilaber | last patch | 12:21 |
| jgilaber | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/958766 | 12:21 |
| jgilaber | this is a followup from a patch we already merged where I added the channel that cinder uses for the notifications by default | 12:21 |
| jgilaber | in this one I remove the old default of 'watcher.watcher_notifications' that is not used anywhere | 12:22 |
| dviroel | ack, this one is the one that we don't want to backport right | 12:22 |
| jgilaber | correct | 12:22 |
| jgilaber | that's all I have, if there are no more questions we can move on | 12:24 |
| jgilaber | thanks! | 12:24 |
| rlandy | thank you jgilaber for bringing those to the team's attention | 12:24 |
| rlandy | that's it for reviews ... | 12:25 |
| rlandy | moving on ... | 12:25 |
| rlandy | #topic Bug Triage | 12:25 |
| rlandy | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2122148 (Workflow Engine is not reverting Actions for failed Action Plans) | 12:25 |
| dviroel | o/ | 12:26 |
| rlandy | pls go ahead | 12:26 |
| dviroel | I openned this one, while trying to validate the rollback of an action plan, to test the revert of actions | 12:26 |
| dviroel | as we can see, we have an config option in watcher | 12:26 |
| dviroel | that enable/disable this rollback | 12:27 |
| dviroel | #link https://docs.openstack.org/watcher/latest/configuration/watcher.html#watcher_applier.rollback_when_actionplan_failed | 12:27 |
| dviroel | which defaults to false | 12:27 |
| dviroel | but when enabled, it doesn't work | 12:27 |
| dviroel | the revert() is never called | 12:27 |
| dviroel | I am pointing in the bug report why this should be happening | 12:28 |
| dviroel | and it seems that is not working for a long time | 12:28 |
| dviroel | it is not simple to fix | 12:28 |
| dviroel | so I added a topic in the PTG to discuss how we can proceed with this feature in the future | 12:29 |
| rlandy | can we put that on Triaged and High/medium? | 12:29 |
| amoralej | the expected behavior is that it rollbacks the entire action plan, right? | 12:29 |
| dviroel | amoralej: yes | 12:29 |
| amoralej | not only the failed action | 12:29 |
| dviroel | amoralej: correct | 12:29 |
| dviroel | it is possible to start the rollback with a small code change | 12:29 |
| dviroel | but since it not tested for a long time | 12:30 |
| dviroel | the revert also fail in other parts, at least for the strategy that I was using | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | that may be how it was orginally intended | 12:30 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i don tbelive we have the correctly logic to supprota that | 12:30 |
| dviroel | so at least in this cycle, we should take an action on that | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel certenly found at least one case i.e. compute node disabled wehere we do not | 12:31 |
| dviroel | like deprecate this feature/config at least, and plan a better way to rollback things | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | right i personally do not think that config drive automatic rollback is somethign we shoudl supprot | 12:31 |
| sean-k-mooney | and yes we shoudl consider how to do this a better way | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | im not gong to say what that shoudl be now but it should not be config driven | 12:32 |
| chandankumar | [rollback mechanism](https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/746845) abandoned cr from past, might be useful | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | config driven api behavior is not something we shoudl do in general | 12:32 |
| sean-k-mooney | chandankumar: yes that as a apprpoch | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | never finalised but its one option we coudl explore | 12:33 |
| sean-k-mooney | that at least made it api driven which is a better direction | 12:33 |
| dviroel | +1 | 12:33 |
| dviroel | so for now, rollback is not working and is a known bug | 12:34 |
| amoralej | you mean make it a config option in audits, i.e.? | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | if i was to design htis now. once a action plan goes to failed i woudl provide an option to calualte a new action plan to roolback the deployment which you could then modify via the skip fetur to only roolback the part you need | 12:34 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: i think we can consider this a know issue yes | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | still a valid bug but the resoltuion might be a new feature | 12:35 |
| sean-k-mooney | rather then a backportable bugfix | 12:35 |
| dviroel | importance? medium/high? | 12:35 |
| amoralej | yep, good to discuss it in ptg | 12:35 |
| dviroel | yeah, maybe we would just deprecate and start a new rollback feature in the end | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | fixign the config option i think low providing a future rollback capablity high | 12:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | i woudl expect this to be its own feature with a detailed spec | 12:36 |
| rlandy | dviroel: do you have what you need to triage and take the next steps? | 12:37 |
| jgilaber | overall I think this bug should be high | 12:37 |
| dviroel | rlandy: yes | 12:37 |
| dviroel | I will also assign to myself | 12:38 |
| dviroel | i will set to medium/high here, to get more lights on it, since is something to follow up | 12:38 |
| rlandy | ok - thanks dviroel | 12:38 |
| rlandy | next ... | 12:39 |
| rlandy | #link: https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2122149 (Host Maintenance does not create Migrate action properly) | 12:39 |
| dviroel | the next one was found when testing the revert | 12:39 |
| rlandy | in progress? | 12:39 |
| dviroel | host maintenance sets source node by its uuid, and the destination by hostname | 12:39 |
| dviroel | both should be hostname | 12:39 |
| dviroel | it doesn't fail because the migration only uses the destination | 12:40 |
| dviroel | but when you try to revert, it fails :) | 12:40 |
| dviroel | i proposed a fix | 12:40 |
| dviroel | we should at leat build the action properly | 12:41 |
| dviroel | this is the only strategy that is doing that | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep agreed | 12:41 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/959889 | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think the patch is in a reasonable good state over all | 12:41 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i need to actully review it properly | 12:42 |
| dviroel | this one I already triaged, set to low | 12:42 |
| dviroel | we can move to the next bug I think | 12:42 |
| rlandy | dviroel: you are on a roll today ... next is yours as well ... | 12:42 |
| rlandy | #link: https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2122362 (Host Maintenance rollback is not possible due to source COMPUTE_STATUS_DISABLED trait) | 12:42 |
| dviroel | which is also host maintenance | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | the one thin i was unsure about i swe aare chanign the node form a uuid to a hostname | 12:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | that implies we do not validat hat in the scema today | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | so there might be other work to do thare later | 12:43 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney: correct, there is no validation in the action schema | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | well there is but it very very loose | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | they are defiend as jsonschemas | 12:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | i want to tighten them up in the futur ebut that a spereate converstaion | 12:44 |
| dviroel | maybe because the uuid is also a string? | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | correct but we shoudl have valdiat for hostname like vs uuid like if we can only supprot one of the too | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | so that is what i ment bey verry very loose | 12:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | but are valid string but only one is a vaild input | 12:44 |
| dviroel | would someone use an uuid as hostname? | 12:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | anyway the next bug is what i mentioned before. | 12:45 |
| dviroel | ack | 12:45 |
| dviroel | 2122362 now | 12:45 |
| dviroel | when trying the rollback, with other fixes | 12:45 |
| dviroel | it failed to revert again | 12:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya so this will be depent on teh stragy used | 12:46 |
| dviroel | mainly because the Action Plan sets the maintenance compute node to Disabled | 12:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | workload blancing for exampel willl not disable | 12:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | exactly | 12:46 |
| dviroel | and when we try to rollback, it fails, because the node is disabled | 12:46 |
| dviroel | this is a more complex rollaback scenario | 12:46 |
| dviroel | which would need to rollback the compute node state first | 12:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | so this is an example of how the action the desciosn enginge stragies do not actully supprot orchestration a rollback today | 12:47 |
| dviroel | yes | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | and that is why i was suggesting a roolback shoudl be its own caludated action plan | 12:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | so it can actully compute the requried actions | 12:47 |
| dviroel | this show how the rollback can be a more complex solution, other than just reverting things | 12:47 |
| dviroel | sean-k-mooney already triaged this one, but there is no easy solution for it right now | 12:48 |
| dviroel | but it is a good example to bring to PTG discussion around rollbacks | 12:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | ya this example is effectivly one concreate usecase that we woudl need the rollback solution to handel | 12:49 |
| dviroel | if you want to check where it started, i have a W-1 patch with a rollback scenario here: | 12:50 |
| dviroel | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/959570 | 12:50 |
| dviroel | ok, so we can discuss more at PTG I think | 12:50 |
| rlandy | anything more on this bug? | 12:51 |
| dviroel | i think we can move on | 12:51 |
| rlandy | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2121870 (Zone migration strategy accepts multiple input that are slightly different) | 12:52 |
| rlandy | jgilaber: ^^ yours? | 12:52 |
| jgilaber | yes, just filed this today | 12:52 |
| jgilaber | sorry the last one is from today | 12:52 |
| jgilaber | this one came up during a review of another patch | 12:52 |
| rlandy | last one ... as in https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2125060 ? | 12:53 |
| rlandy | there are two on the etherpad | 12:53 |
| jgilaber | yes | 12:53 |
| rlandy | do you want to discuss here or triage? | 12:54 |
| jgilaber | about 2121870, the zone migration strategy does only have a very simple schema validation | 12:54 |
| dviroel | yeah, in 2121870 the strategy could validate that src_* is not duplicated, since it don't use both when proposing a solution. | 12:54 |
| dviroel | i.e. it don't use both dest_* as possible destinations, only the first one | 12:55 |
| jgilaber | exactly, I can't think of any valid use case for such an input | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | so for https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2121870 | 12:55 |
| jgilaber | but it could happen by mistake, e.g a type in the second line | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | that shoudl restul in a 400 invalid request | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | to me that is an invaild request since we do not supprot a list of destionat pools for the same source pool | 12:56 |
| jgilaber | s/type/typo | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | so https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2121870 is valid and medium to high in my view | 12:56 |
| jgilaber | +1 to that | 12:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | regarding https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2125060 | 12:57 |
| dviroel | agree | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | i thinik https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2125060 is also valid but medium | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | this is a simialr type of issue we hit for nova notificaon too right | 12:57 |
| jgilaber | actually I think that one could be preventing building the model correctly | 12:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | if the model does not yet have an instnace and we get a noticion tha twoudl update it then it had a bug like this in the past | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh actully this is slightly diffent | 12:58 |
| jgilaber | yes, this is not the same | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | in thei case it because the total_volumes is nto presnt | 12:58 |
| dviroel | so in the end it doesn't update the model? | 12:58 |
| jgilaber | yes, and possibly others fields as well | 12:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | so wherne a backend/pool doe not provide total voluem we need to caluate that difefntly or be more graceful in general | 12:58 |
| jgilaber | I'm working on a patch to treat those fields as optional | 12:59 |
| jgilaber | IIUC this bug prevents the notification being fully processed | 12:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | that might eb a short term mitigation | 12:59 |
| jgilaber | some of the optional fields like total_volumes I think can be removed | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think long term at least fo r total_volumes we need to heal the value if not present | 13:00 |
| jgilaber | I did a quick grep and I did not see any usage other than the model | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | etierh async or directly when processing it by listing the volume for a backend/pool via cinders api | 13:00 |
| jgilaber | others related to capacity are used in the storage balance strategy | 13:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack if we have no real usage of it today then yes removing is also fine | 13:01 |
| dviroel | we need to review all fields from storage model at some point | 13:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | +1 | 13:01 |
| jgilaber | my plane was to have a short term fix and a longer term review and cleaning of fields | 13:01 |
| jgilaber | *plan | 13:01 |
| dviroel | set to high in this case? | 13:03 |
| jgilaber | I think so | 13:03 |
| sean-k-mooney | so the critiate we shoudl be using is effectivly https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/bugs.html#importance | 13:04 |
| sean-k-mooney | this is a "Failure of a significant feature, no workaround" as it breaks the ablity to update the storage model via notificaions | 13:04 |
| dviroel | +1 | 13:04 |
| jgilaber | maybe, although there certain conditions to be met for the problem to appear | 13:04 |
| jgilaber | e.g using a storage backend different than lvms | 13:05 |
| sean-k-mooney | well the main one is using a storage backend that does nto provide the expected feilds | 13:05 |
| sean-k-mooney | right like ceph right? | 13:05 |
| jgilaber | yes, I've seen it with ceph and nfs | 13:05 |
| sean-k-mooney | right so cpeh is by far the most common sotage backend for openstack | 13:05 |
| sean-k-mooney | like 50-60% of all deployments | 13:05 |
| sean-k-mooney | well that have cinder at least | 13:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | so breakages of ceph are more impactful | 13:06 |
| jgilaber | fair point, but what about the note | 13:06 |
| jgilaber | "Note that presence of Critical bugs will delay the release." | 13:06 |
| rlandy | we're over time folks ... so we should call it. Please continue if needed on channel | 13:07 |
| jgilaber | does that mean that if we set to critical it will force us to include a bug fix in a new rc for flamingo? | 13:07 |
| amoralej | it really breaks adding the volume to the model? i've seen similar errors which didn't impede the volume to be added | 13:07 |
| jgilaber | It adds the volume but not under the pool | 13:08 |
| dviroel | ouch | 13:08 |
| jgilaber | I've have not verified the full impact yet but it could | 13:08 |
| sean-k-mooney | that becasue pools are optional | 13:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | and ceph does not use them by defualt | 13:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | i think | 13:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | so we shodul not really asusme there are bools | 13:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | *pools | 13:09 |
| dviroel | we can revisit this bug next meeting too | 13:10 |
| amoralej | it's a bit weird that it calls update_pool or create_pool when adding a new volume | 13:10 |
| sean-k-mooney | +1 | 13:10 |
| jgilaber | I've seen it with nfs as well | 13:10 |
| jgilaber | but I think I suspect (need to verify) that it might fail the audit | 13:10 |
| dviroel | rlandy: there is only my nick in the volunteers to chair :) | 13:11 |
| sean-k-mooney | amoralej: well that may be becasue the asssume dthat voluem alwasy live in a pool and what to keep the two in sync | 13:11 |
| dviroel | i will add this bug to next meeting agenda | 13:11 |
| amoralej | could be | 13:11 |
| rlandy | dviroel: ack - thank you - next meeting is yours | 13:11 |
| rlandy | I'll close this one and you can take the bug forward | 13:11 |
| rlandy | thanks all | 13:12 |
| rlandy | #endmeeting | 13:12 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu Sep 18 13:12:13 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 13:12 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher_irc_weekly_meeting___september_18__2025/2025/watcher_irc_weekly_meeting___september_18__2025.2025-09-18-12.01.html | 13:12 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher_irc_weekly_meeting___september_18__2025/2025/watcher_irc_weekly_meeting___september_18__2025.2025-09-18-12.01.txt | 13:12 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/watcher_irc_weekly_meeting___september_18__2025/2025/watcher_irc_weekly_meeting___september_18__2025.2025-09-18-12.01.log.html | 13:12 |
| dviroel | tks | 13:12 |
| opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/watcher stable/2025.2: Add unit tests for instance and volume not found in model https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/961632 | 13:27 |
| opendevreview | Douglas Viroel proposed openstack/watcher stable/2025.2: Fix zone migration instance not found issue https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/961635 | 13:27 |
| jgilaber | I think I was wrong on my assumption, after taking a better look on the failures on nfs I don't think https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2125060 is making the audit fail | 13:39 |
| jgilaber | there are two test failing, one is hitting https://bugs.launchpad.net/watcher/+bug/2088118 and the other looks like some misconfiguration of the volume types | 13:41 |
| jgilaber | or some other bug in the cinder helper | 13:41 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: [WIP] Handle optional pool fields in Cinder notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/961667 | 14:04 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher master: [WIP] Handle optional pool fields in Cinder notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/961667 | 14:06 |
| opendevreview | Joan Gilabert proposed openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin master: Add test for volume migrate with zone migration https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher-tempest-plugin/+/958644 | 16:00 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!