03:08:51 <Yumeng> #startmeeting openstack-cyborg
03:08:52 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Sep 17 03:08:51 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Yumeng. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
03:08:53 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
03:08:55 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_cyborg'
03:09:04 <Yumeng> #topic Roll call
03:09:09 <Yumeng> #info Yumeng
03:09:20 <swp20> #info swp20
03:09:29 <xinranwang__> #info xinranwang__
03:09:41 <s_shogo> #info s_shogo
03:09:45 <brinzhang_> #info brinzhang_
03:10:03 <Yumeng> cool
03:10:07 <Yumeng> #topic Agenda
03:10:17 <chenke> #info chenke
03:11:36 <Yumeng> we are approaching final rc. Code freeze is Oct 05 - Oct 09, but we actually may just have 13 days to go before RC cut because of the Chinese National Holiday(Oct 01 - Oct 08).
03:12:06 <xinranwang__> wow, it's approching
03:12:49 <Yumeng> yep ^ time flies.
03:13:59 <Yumeng> and we now have one big feature to merge. the program API patch: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698190/
03:14:09 <s_shogo> yes > program API patch
03:14:26 <s_shogo> I read your comment just now, I'll add the TODO soon.
03:14:34 <s_shogo> : Yumeng
03:14:44 <Yumeng> Great!
03:15:21 <swp20> s_shogo: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698190/11/cyborg/agent/rpcapi.py@L49 do we need always to change the version to RPC_API_VERSION?
03:15:58 <swp20> i think the 1.0 is the min version.
03:16:30 <swp20> we shouldnot change it.
03:16:35 <s_shogo> That is not mandatory one, IMO.
03:18:30 <brinzhang_> agree with swp20, we should change the version in fpga_program()
03:18:46 <s_shogo> But there seems to be warning may be outputted if there is difference between manager.py's microversion and RPC versions.
03:18:53 <swp20> if we change it, other api may be effected.
03:18:56 <brinzhang_> but it seems the 1.0 is not exist
03:20:49 <Yumeng> "manager.py's microversion and RPC versions", will these two have conflicts?
03:21:56 <s_shogo> Yumeng that may be in my specific problem, I'll check that.
03:22:33 <brinzhang_> s_shogo: keep the rpc version in 1.0 is better than to change it to 1.1, it is backward compatible
03:22:43 <brinzhang_> I think
03:23:37 <Yumeng> Thanks s_shogo.
03:23:38 <s_shogo> brinzhang_ : as before , you mentioned the 1.1 in the patch, that is old one?
03:24:30 <brinzhang_> may I missed this said by swp20
03:25:58 <s_shogo> OK, to change that to 1.0 is not difficult task,
03:26:42 <brinzhang_> Yumeng, s_shogo: RPC_API_VERSION exist in manager.py and rpcapi.py, in the manager.py do we need it?
03:27:38 <brinzhang_> It seems like no need to record that in AgentManager, right?
03:27:59 <Yumeng> yes I thinks so.
03:28:11 <Yumeng> just checked another project, pls see https://github.com/openstack/manila/blob/479f5f1938bd212982cd4a2d25464b757ca12e2b/manila/scheduler/manager.py
03:28:33 <brinzhang_> A question is in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698190/11/cyborg/agent/manager.py@46, do we need to init the target for new rpc api version?
03:29:51 <Yumeng> ops,  seems manila.SchedulerManager recorded RPC_API_VERSION but didn't actually use it.
03:30:35 <brinzhang_> https://github.com/openstack/manila/blob/479f5f1938bd212982cd4a2d25464b757ca12e2b/manila/scheduler/rpcapi.py#L28-L53
03:31:31 <xinranwang__> Shall we make conductor manager and rpcapi have same verison?
03:31:51 <brinzhang_> the change rpc api always keep in latest version init in target in manila schdeuler rpcapi
03:34:03 <Yumeng> brinzhang_,s_shogo:  cinder may have a better example in using RPC_API_VERSION in both rpc.py and manager.py. FIR:https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/19caf5651b1272cba46396c53bd5cbb6a312def5/cinder/manager.py , https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/3c29c3846ee4e0a43e74f7328642ace218f00d18/cinder/rpc.py#L202
03:36:36 <brinzhang_> from these example, we can sure the Target need the latest RPC version, it can support 1.0~latest
03:37:02 <brinzhang_> target = messaging.Target(topic=self.TOPIC, version=self.RPC_API_VERSION)
03:37:41 <Yumeng> xinranwang__, I think  conductor rpcapi_version can be different from that of agent.
03:37:45 <brinzhang_> s_shogo: please test in you local for the program API, and changed the target
03:38:28 <s_shogo> ok, I try that.
03:39:08 <brinzhang_> How to understand Yumeng's doubt?
03:41:20 <swp20> s_shogo: i change conductor rpcapi target version to latest, and create dp with error: HttpException: 500: Server Error for url: http://10.180.249.199/accelerator/v2/device_profiles, Remote error: UnsupportedVersion Endpoint does not support RPC version 1.1. Attempted method: device_profile_create
03:41:46 <s_shogo> now, I have encountered the same error. that returns 500.
03:41:49 <s_shogo> swp20
03:42:18 <s_shogo> ( in fpga_program
03:42:51 <swp20> we should research this.
03:43:21 <brinzhang_> IMO, that need to have a deep search, and make sure what we should do, waht do you think, s_shogo, Yumeng, xinranwang_, swp20?
03:44:01 <s_shogo> Toward Victoria release, to change the RPC version 1.0 temporary is one way ,IMO.
03:44:11 <xinranwang__> s
03:44:32 <xinranwang__> s_shogo: yes I agree this
03:44:42 <s_shogo> (that is not perfect solution , this is temporary .)
03:45:40 <brinzhang_> ok
03:45:45 <xinranwang__> don't block on this
03:46:22 <xinranwang__> we can backport this to V when we figure it out
03:46:55 <s_shogo> that's good, I agree the backport:  xinranwang_
03:47:05 <brinzhang_> We can let this go, but need to make sure it's ok for this release, at least, we dont introduce an error
03:47:56 <swp20> ok. aggree
03:47:59 <Yumeng> yes, agree. don't block on this
03:49:16 <Yumeng> ok.. let's move to next topic.
03:49:16 <s_shogo> ok, I will change that, and commit soon.
03:49:31 <Yumeng> thanks s_shogo
03:49:37 <s_shogo> thanks all
03:49:41 <brinzhang_> ok
03:49:43 <brinzhang_> *me will left 30mins
03:50:35 <Yumeng> here is just an announcement: What to do next week? review and merge docs, release note, bug fix, and necessary enhancement patches mainly for Victoria delivery.
03:51:24 <Yumeng> and when I was check doc page this morning. I wanna discuss with you guys what is not good with the current doc page? what we can do in the next few days? https://docs.openstack.org/cyborg/latest/
03:53:37 <Yumeng> I was writing the doc for the cyborg new policy as a usage guide. and will submit a very basic framework of that.
03:55:18 <Yumeng> do we need to update the driver's usage guide? I think the testing report is already good enough, but how can users know this can be also a usage guide?
03:58:54 <Yumeng> Another page I can think of is the CLI page. I will update this. https://docs.openstack.org/cyborg/latest/cli/index.html.
03:59:05 <Yumeng> That's all I can think of for now.
04:00:00 <s_shogo> I think the lack of cli document is problem, too.
04:00:31 <s_shogo> I'm trying to add the cyborg plugin's description to the osc document , now.  https://review.opendev.org/#/c/751986/
04:01:29 <Yumeng> Just mention this, doesn't have to point out all of them at one. if you guys think of other pages, just ping us at wechat.
04:01:49 <Yumeng> s_shogo: nice! do you need helpt in asking review?
04:02:19 <s_shogo> Yumeng now,I'm trying fix the Zuul errors. after that, I will ask your review :)
04:02:41 <Yumeng> sure.
04:03:58 <Yumeng> cool. Thank you, guys!  We've done a lot in Victoria!
04:04:36 <Yumeng> Do you guys want to bring up anything else?
04:05:12 <Yumeng> if nothing else, let's wrap up this meeting and see you all again next week!
04:05:26 <Yumeng> bye
04:05:28 <Yumeng> #endmeeting