14:00:14 <rosmaita> #startmeeting cinder
14:00:15 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Sep  1 14:00:14 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is rosmaita. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:15 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:15 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
14:00:25 <fabiooliveira> hi
14:00:32 <rosmaita> #topic roll call
14:00:34 <rosmaita> hello
14:00:34 <whoami-rajat> Hi
14:00:36 <sfernand> hi
14:00:39 <walshh_> hi
14:00:45 <abishop> o/
14:01:25 <simondodsley> hi
14:01:29 <enriquetaso> hi
14:01:40 <rosmaita> good turnout!
14:02:00 <rosmaita> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-xena-meetings
14:02:15 <rosmaita> let's get started
14:02:22 <rosmaita> #topic announcements
14:02:39 <jungleboyj> o/
14:02:56 <rosmaita> client library releases have to happen this week
14:02:59 <rosmaita> namely, tomorrow
14:03:12 <rosmaita> we have 2 libraries that fit this
14:03:24 <rosmaita> cinderclient-brick-ext
14:03:30 <rosmaita> https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/python-brick-cinderclient-ext+status:open+branch:master
14:03:46 <rosmaita> there are a few tiny patches sitting there, let's get them reviewed and merged
14:04:18 <rosmaita> definitely need the dropping lower constraints patch merged
14:04:29 <rosmaita> and the other 2 are very nice as well
14:05:06 <rosmaita> and the other library, of course, is the fabulous cinderclient
14:05:15 <rosmaita> https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/python-cinderclient+status:open+branch:master
14:06:09 <rosmaita> there are a couple of changes that look L, but that's because they remove a bunch of code
14:06:31 <rosmaita> we need to talk about https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-cinderclient/+/806817 however
14:06:52 <rosmaita> that depends on mv 3.66 merging into cinder
14:07:25 <rosmaita> i suspect no one saw my email about this, i think it was held up in the intertubes
14:07:44 <rosmaita> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-September/024580.html
14:08:29 <enriquetaso> read the email, I was reviewing it earlier
14:08:43 <rosmaita> so i have two questions: 1. what are the odds of https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/789564 merging today?
14:08:51 <rosmaita> i mean, does anyone have reservations about it?
14:09:08 <rosmaita> it's ok to have reservations, it's just that it would be really helpful for me to know that
14:10:21 <rosmaita> the other question is about the cinderclient patch, it turned out to be a bit more complicated than i expected
14:10:39 <rosmaita> (i actually expected that it didn't require a code change, but i was sorely mistaken)
14:10:51 <sfernand> reviewed this week and patch looks good.. Do you folks need someone to test it or something?
14:11:01 <rosmaita> that patch is https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-cinderclient/+/806817/
14:11:28 <jungleboyj> I was going to look at the in-use volumes one.  I don't have reservations.
14:12:16 <rosmaita> ok, thanks jungleboyj and sfernand ... so it is at least possible that mv 3.66 will merge into cinder
14:12:36 <rosmaita> so then it comes down to whether https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-cinderclient/+/806817/ is a good approach to handling it on the cinderclient side
14:13:24 <rosmaita> so, please review as soon as possible and leave comments!
14:13:26 <rosmaita> thank you
14:13:53 <rosmaita> once we know what's going into cinderclient, i'll get the final release notes patch up
14:13:59 <rosmaita> which will be easy for people to review
14:14:21 <rosmaita> i looked at the requirements, which we updated aggressively in wallaby, and they look OK for xena
14:14:29 <rosmaita> so I won't be proposing a requirements update
14:14:51 <rosmaita> ok, the other exciting thing happening this week is
14:15:03 <rosmaita> feature freeze and soft string freeze
14:15:21 <rosmaita> these technically happen tomorrow, but I think we can say Friday
14:15:47 <rosmaita> so, stuff not merged by Friday 20:00 UTC will require a feature freeze exception
14:16:23 <abishop> I anticipate several exceptions will be requested
14:16:24 <rosmaita> which consists of an email to the openstack-discuss list with "[cinder] xena FFE request" in the subject line
14:16:55 <rosmaita> and in the body of your email say what blueprint and patch(es) you are requesting
14:16:59 <sfernand> ack, netapp has two major features this release and we are kind of desperate for reviews
14:17:35 <rosmaita> right, so if we get mv 3.66 sorted out in the next few hours, we can review features like crazy for the next few days
14:17:43 <rosmaita> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/xena
14:18:00 <rosmaita> review prioritization is: reviews associated with ^^
14:18:15 <sfernand> so should drop the feature freeze exception on Friday morning if necessary, right?
14:18:43 <rosmaita> well, more like Friday afternoon
14:19:05 <sfernand> ok
14:19:16 <sfernand> I've notice there are some bps in the list that are not supposed to reach xena I guess
14:19:22 <sfernand> like sizing-encrypted-volumes
14:19:25 <rosmaita> i think it's traditional to have an FFE request deadline, I will say Tuesday 7 september at 20:00 UTC
14:19:49 <rosmaita> sfernand: good point, i was forgetting
14:19:57 <enriquetaso> sizing-encrypted-volumes is not going to make it for this Friday
14:20:04 <enriquetaso> I'm still working on it
14:20:11 <rosmaita> yes, let's all open the page and look at what is postponeable to Yoga
14:20:12 <jungleboyj> rosmaita:  ++
14:20:19 <rosmaita> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/xena
14:20:21 <sfernand> I miss that etherpad with the critical patches to review for the release to be honest. It makes more easier to focus reviews on
14:20:41 <rosmaita> sfernand: i agree entirely, thank you for bringing it up
14:21:25 <rosmaita> enriquetaso: are you going to ask for an FFE, or is it more an early Yoga kind of thing?
14:21:52 <enriquetaso> guess more an early Yoga kind of thing
14:22:09 <rosmaita> ok, thanks, i will move it to Yoga
14:22:13 <enriquetaso> what is a FFE?
14:22:14 <geguileo> sfernand: shouldn't we be using the review priority for that purpose?
14:22:24 <jungleboyj> Feature Freeze Exception
14:22:29 <enriquetaso> thanks
14:22:44 <enriquetaso> sadly I'm still too green on that
14:22:54 <rosmaita> well, the problem is review priority disappears when a new PS is pushed to gerrit
14:23:21 <jungleboyj> :-)
14:23:24 <rosmaita> abishop: are you working on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/availabilityzone-and-volumetype-for-backup-restore
14:23:27 <sfernand> geguileo: I believe this also works, just mentioned the etherpad because I was really used to it and also could drop some comments there
14:23:55 <geguileo> sfernand: that is true, being able to write something there was helpful
14:23:56 <abishop> I submitted the patch that implements that bp, so I'm just requesting reviews
14:24:01 <whoami-rajat> i think we can do R+2 since feature freeze is so near? that doesn't disappear IIRC
14:24:05 <sfernand> I think the integration with the people interest in have stuff merged works better
14:24:06 <abishop> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/806260
14:24:24 <rosmaita> abishop: that's a different bp
14:24:39 <abishop> the feature is entirely policy based, so doesn't need a mv or cinderclient change
14:24:48 <abishop> oh, duh, wrong one :-/
14:24:54 <abishop> give me a moment
14:24:58 <rosmaita> sure
14:25:29 <abishop> no, I have not been working on that
14:25:43 <abishop> not sure why it's assigned to me
14:25:47 <rosmaita> ok, ,i will move it to yoga and you can decide if you want to abandon it
14:25:58 <abishop> I worked on a similar feature that only affected the client, back in W
14:26:09 <rosmaita> ok
14:26:23 <rosmaita> fix-snapshot-create-force is the mv 3.66 patch we discussed earlier
14:27:01 <rosmaita> i saw that TusharTgite has patches up for reset-state-robustification, so that's good
14:27:50 <rosmaita> ok there are 3 netapp BPs, and open-e-jovian-dss
14:27:59 <rosmaita> and hitachi consistency groups
14:28:52 <rosmaita> nimble-change-location may not be a thing ... the developer who was working on it, is not any more, and i haven't heard anything from his successors
14:29:36 <rosmaita> ok, so plenty of stuff for everyone to review
14:30:00 <rosmaita> and as always, people who are waiting for reviews of bugfixes, etc., can help out
14:30:16 <rosmaita> ok, final announcement
14:30:26 <rosmaita> the first community goal for Yoga has been announced
14:30:37 <rosmaita> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/803783
14:30:53 <rosmaita> it's "implementing secure and consistent RBAC"
14:31:06 <rosmaita> cinder strategy is to do this partly in Xena, partly in Yoga
14:31:15 <rosmaita> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/763306
14:31:27 <rosmaita> ^^ has an "implementation strategy" section you can look at
14:31:46 <rosmaita> and there's another patch that gives more technical details about the changes
14:31:56 <rosmaita> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/803748
14:32:13 <rosmaita> ok, that's all from me
14:32:19 <rosmaita> any announcements i missed?
14:33:01 <rosmaita> #topic Request review of "user visible extra specs" feature
14:33:16 <rosmaita> this is a legitimate request, we just saw that it's among the Xena features
14:33:25 <rosmaita> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/806260
14:33:36 <rosmaita> abishop: any other comments about that?
14:33:55 <abishop> just a repeat of what I mentioned already, the feature is entirely policy based, so doesn't need a mv or cinderclient change
14:34:12 <rosmaita> great
14:34:29 <abishop> that's it, thx!
14:34:32 <rosmaita> #topic Backup user messages
14:34:35 <rosmaita> whoami-rajat: that's you
14:34:39 <whoami-rajat> hi
14:35:14 <whoami-rajat> so Brian has a concern with the patch that we are doing some message handling in backup side which should be done with messages API
14:35:28 <whoami-rajat> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/786627/19/cinder/backup/manager.py#490
14:35:40 <whoami-rajat> would appreciate more opinions on it
14:37:26 <rosmaita> ok, everyone has opinions, please express them!
14:37:35 <whoami-rajat> just to summarize, the concern is regarding the ``message_created`` variable which is checking if a previous user message was created and doesn't create more messages
14:38:28 <rosmaita> yeah, my position on that may be overly cynical
14:38:41 <rosmaita> but you can read the discussion on the patch
14:39:05 <rosmaita> #topic stable release update
14:39:08 <rosmaita> whoami-rajat: you again
14:39:13 <whoami-rajat> thanks :D
14:39:18 <whoami-rajat> so we've some progress
14:39:37 <whoami-rajat> All open changes in stable/wallaby merged and I've proposed a release patch
14:39:43 <rosmaita> i saw that, thanks for getting the release together
14:39:47 <whoami-rajat> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/806831
14:39:58 <whoami-rajat> thanks for all the reviews, specially Jay and Brian
14:40:04 <whoami-rajat> np
14:40:11 <whoami-rajat> and i just saw a comment from herve
14:40:22 <whoami-rajat> which i think we can discuss now
14:40:39 <whoami-rajat> there's a change for Pure storage driver, "652c3bf31 changed the minimum SDK version required for pure storage."
14:40:53 <rosmaita> herve really does pay close attention!
14:41:00 <whoami-rajat> which for Herve is asking a minor bump
14:41:16 <jungleboyj> :-)
14:41:30 <whoami-rajat> i think that makes sense? it's a driver change but also a requirements change
14:41:36 <rosmaita> well, we decided that the change wasn't a block to backporting
14:41:48 <rosmaita> and he's not objecting to that, so i think a minor version change is fine
14:42:18 <whoami-rajat> ok, thanks for inputs
14:42:39 <whoami-rajat> that's all for me
14:42:46 <rosmaita> whoami-rajat: go ahead and update the patch, and I will re-vote on it
14:42:47 <rosmaita> thanks!
14:42:56 <whoami-rajat> and hope the reviews continue for victoria and ussuri as well :)
14:43:00 <whoami-rajat> sure, thanks
14:43:08 <rosmaita> #topic open discussion
14:43:41 <rosmaita> just want to pass along a request from zenkuro, to please please please review the open-e-jovian-dss changes!
14:44:32 <rosmaita> hay! this patch was review and Ive addressed recommendatyions and issues please review it https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/806191
14:44:32 <rosmaita> also here is verry small patch that enables feature for driver https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/806726/3
14:44:32 <rosmaita> and here is a naming and code style fix https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/806559/5
14:44:43 <rosmaita> ^^ that's in zenkuro's own words
14:44:45 <eharney> what's the deadline for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/789603 ?
14:45:24 <rosmaita> it's a bugfix, so RC-week
14:45:33 <rosmaita> let me check the date
14:45:59 <rosmaita> week of 13 sept
14:46:09 <rosmaita> so before 16 sept
14:48:03 <eharney> i got lost working through where to validate what in my update to that, need to cycle back on it
14:48:16 <rosmaita> btw, i have been using f-strings a lot lately, but i seem to remember that people don't like those?
14:48:23 <rosmaita> i am finding them quite nice
14:48:28 <eharney> they're good
14:48:44 <whoami-rajat> we should also check grenade with this since the last patch broke gate (even though it was the stable/wallaby patch)
14:48:58 <jungleboyj> Ok, so f"text" is valid?  I have never seen it before.
14:49:15 <rosmaita> it lets you do easy variable substitutions
14:49:31 <rosmaita> without having to do all that % stuff
14:49:43 <eharney> yeah we should be catching up on modern python features
14:49:49 * eharney *cough* type annotations
14:49:51 <jungleboyj> Hmmm.  That is new to me.
14:50:00 <jungleboyj> Ok.  Sorry for the dumb comment on the review then.
14:50:27 <rosmaita> np, it's a good chance to make sure we are all ok with using them
14:50:44 <rosmaita> i somehow have this memory of someone saying "no f-strings in cinder"
14:50:54 <rosmaita> but that may have been one of my cinder nightmares
14:51:16 <rosmaita> or it's someone no longer working on the project
14:51:22 <eharney> i don't remember that
14:51:25 <abishop> it's a python feature that works great when it solves a problem, but if abused makes the code less readable
14:51:35 <abishop> my $.02
14:52:06 <jungleboyj> Now that I look at it, it makes sense.
14:52:15 <rosmaita> ok, so our official position is that f-strings, when used appropriately are fine
14:52:32 <eharney> like with everything, just try to go for what is most readable
14:52:33 <rosmaita> but if a particular string isn't readable, feel free to request a different kind of string
14:52:40 <rosmaita> eharney: ++
14:52:56 <rosmaita> jungleboyj: i can't believe you spotted that extra space!
14:53:04 <eharney> worrying about these rules too much has resulted in some pretty weird uses of parentheses when backslashes should have been used, so, don't over do it
14:53:36 <jungleboyj> rosmaita:  :-)  For some reason that stuff stands out to me.  The kids these days not using two spaces after a '.' drives me nuts.
14:54:02 <rosmaita> :) i am a two-space-after-a-period kind of guy
14:54:17 <rosmaita> let sphinx figure it out
14:54:48 <jungleboyj> eharney: I updated my vote.  We can fix the space later.
14:54:53 <rosmaita> eharney: lmk if you are ok with the changes i made to https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/789564
14:55:01 <rosmaita> thanks, jay
14:55:11 <eharney> rosmaita: will do
14:55:18 <rosmaita> cool, ty
14:56:37 <rosmaita> whoami-rajat: you said something about a patch breaking grenade?
14:58:12 <whoami-rajat> rosmaita, the encryption one, we moved the check from c-vol to c-api and when merged in wallaby it broke grenade job
14:58:35 <eharney> we fixed that by running grenade where it needs to run now, right?
14:59:00 <whoami-rajat> because grenade wasn't creating an encrypted volume type properly, but again we've to avoid similar scenario since it broke other project gates as well
14:59:28 <rosmaita> did we have that problem in master?
14:59:36 <eharney> yes
14:59:50 <whoami-rajat> eharney, this was the fix https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/grenade/+/803317
14:59:52 <eharney> because grenade was creating unusable types and relying on them to be created
14:59:53 <rosmaita> i don't remember how we fixed it
15:00:33 <whoami-rajat> we fixed how grenade creates encrypted volume types (which was the wrong way previously)
15:00:35 <eharney> well the main takeaway is, we need to run grenade in our gate, did we fix that?
15:01:56 <whoami-rajat> eharney, the problem is only visible when that patch merges in N-1 branch (like stable/wallaby in that case), because greande creates resources in SOURCE branch and then upgrades to target (N) branch
15:02:12 <whoami-rajat> we already run greande in our gate
15:02:16 <rosmaita> we are running grenade in gate and check
15:02:39 <rosmaita> whoami-rajat: is grenade branched, unlike tempest?
15:02:48 <whoami-rajat> rosmaita, yes, branched
15:02:54 <eharney> i guess i'm not sure what the request is -- we go run grenade by hand looking for issues to make sure it works?
15:03:07 <rosmaita> ok, so i guess you need to propose a backport of your patch?
15:03:52 <whoami-rajat> eharney, I'm not sure either, somehow with backports we need to be careful if greande is running properly
15:04:13 <whoami-rajat> rosmaita, someone proposed but since it wasn't needed for gate fix, it was abandoned
15:04:33 <rosmaita> ok, but now it is needed?
15:04:59 <rosmaita> (sorry, it's been a long day already, i am having trouble following the conversation)
15:05:15 <rosmaita> and we are over time!
15:05:30 <rosmaita> thanks everyone, please please please review review review
15:05:42 <rosmaita> let's get to enriquetaso's bug squad meeting in cinder channel
15:05:44 <whoami-rajat> until we backport [1] further, we are good for now [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/800268
15:05:58 <rosmaita> ok, thanks whoami-rajat
15:06:01 <rosmaita> #endmeeting