14:01:03 <whoami-rajat> #startmeeting cinder
14:01:03 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Apr 19 14:01:03 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is whoami-rajat. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:03 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:03 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
14:01:05 <whoami-rajat> #topic roll call
14:01:14 <whoami-rajat> #topic roll call
14:01:26 <rosmaita> o/
14:01:29 <felipe_rodrigues> o/
14:01:29 <eharney> hi
14:01:34 <zaitcev> o/
14:01:36 <Tony_Saad> o/
14:01:37 <keerthivasansuresh> o/
14:01:41 <nahimsouza[m]> o/
14:01:45 <tosky> o/
14:01:50 <helenadantas[m]> o/
14:01:52 <thiagoalvoravel> o/
14:03:36 <drencrom> Hi all. Is there an agenda for today's meeting?
14:03:51 <whoami-rajat> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-bobcat-meetings
14:03:55 <whoami-rajat> drencrom, ^
14:05:32 <senrique> hi
14:05:46 <lucasmoliveira059> o/
14:05:55 <whoami-rajat> hello everyone, let's get started
14:06:02 <whoami-rajat> #topic announcements
14:06:07 <TusharTgite> hi
14:06:08 <whoami-rajat> first, Xena EM
14:06:15 <whoami-rajat> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/878882
14:06:44 <whoami-rajat> I reviewed all the open patches in xena and saw many of them not merged into more recent branches
14:06:50 * jungleboyj sneaks in late
14:06:52 <whoami-rajat> so we've excluded them from the final xena release
14:07:30 <whoami-rajat> looks like Jon isn't around but i will ping him later to propose a final release patch
14:07:48 <whoami-rajat> and then move xena to EM (as done in the release patch above)
14:09:19 <rosmaita> we can get the "pin tox <4" patches into xena later, but we should get them in (and out of my life)
14:09:51 <whoami-rajat> ah yes, maybe i missed reviewing them or already done it, can't remember ...
14:10:15 <rosmaita> i think you reviewed them
14:11:11 <rosmaita> doesn't matter for release, just thought I'd mention it :)
14:11:59 <whoami-rajat> yep i see i haven't, will do that after the meeting (since we're sticking with tox)
14:12:33 <whoami-rajat> next is, Update on EOL Stein and Rocky
14:12:44 <whoami-rajat> #link https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-April/033386.html
14:13:27 <whoami-rajat> so Elod replied to rosmaita's email saying that they will put up a rocky-eol patch
14:13:32 <whoami-rajat> for all projects
14:13:49 <whoami-rajat> it's still not clear for stein but hopefully the same will be done for that
14:14:11 <whoami-rajat> from cinder perspective, we won't be actively reviewing patches in those branches
14:14:22 <rosmaita> i think we (cinder project) can just go ahead and EOL stein ourselves
14:14:30 <rosmaita> nobody objected on the ML
14:15:42 <whoami-rajat> yeah that's also possible
14:16:22 <whoami-rajat> I was thinking if the whole openstack does it, it would be even better
14:16:43 <rosmaita> iirc, nova and neutron have done it already
14:18:21 <whoami-rajat> ok, we can do it for cinder then, Jon or I can put up a release patch for it
14:18:35 <rosmaita> i think Jon is planning to do it
14:18:56 <rosmaita> yeah, just checked, nova and neutron both have rocky-eol and stein-eol tags
14:20:45 <whoami-rajat> ok great, let's do it for cinder as well
14:22:48 <whoami-rajat> final announcement, Festival of XS reviews this week
14:23:06 <whoami-rajat> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-festival-of-reviews
14:23:17 <whoami-rajat> we will be having festival of xs reviews on 21 April
14:23:22 <whoami-rajat> which is this friday
14:23:23 <rosmaita> wow, it's the 3rd week of april already
14:23:34 <whoami-rajat> i will send out a mail later today
14:23:39 <jungleboyj> :-)  April has been very fast.
14:24:02 <whoami-rajat> I'm amazed it's April already :D 2023 is also fast
14:25:30 <whoami-rajat> anyway, that's all the announcements
14:25:36 <whoami-rajat> i see jbernard joined in
14:25:46 <jbernard> o/
14:25:49 <whoami-rajat> we were discussing about rocky and stein EOL
14:26:02 <whoami-rajat> for rocky, the release team will be putting up patches as written in their email
14:26:28 <whoami-rajat> and for stein, rosmaita suggested that we put up our own patch
14:26:43 <jbernard> im workign on it now, no problem
14:27:10 <whoami-rajat> great thanks!
14:27:20 <rosmaita> jbernard: probably do both rocky and stein so there's no confusion
14:27:32 <jbernard> that was my plan
14:27:48 <jbernard> i can abandon anythign that conflicts with release team proposals
14:27:54 <whoami-rajat> if the release team hasn't done it already then sounds good ^
14:27:55 <rosmaita> sounds good
14:28:55 <whoami-rajat> i think that's all for announcements, let's move to topics
14:29:14 <whoami-rajat> #topic Discuss patch that changes schema validation
14:29:17 <whoami-rajat> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/868485
14:29:21 <whoami-rajat> drencrom, that's you
14:29:56 <drencrom> Yes, we discussed this a few weeks ago. The point is that the limit control counts characters but mysql limit is in bytes
14:30:27 <drencrom> I've checked what glance does and it seems it just fails when mysql fails to insert the data
14:30:54 <drencrom> And does not control the size
14:32:27 <rosmaita> so basically, this changes the request schema but doesn't have to mess with the database because that's already big enough
14:32:43 <eharney> the database has a 64k cap?  or is uncapped?
14:33:08 <drencrom> Mysql text fields have a 64k limit
14:33:40 <drencrom> but text can have utf8 chars so that the char limit is not really useful
14:34:38 <rosmaita> drencrom: do you mean the mysql field is measured in bytes, not chars?
14:34:52 <drencrom> yes
14:35:26 <rosmaita> ok, since the stuff is coming in via json, it's definitely utf8
14:35:49 <rosmaita> iirc, worst case for utf8 is 4 bytes?
14:36:02 <rosmaita> (i mean to represent a character)
14:36:08 <eharney> yes
14:36:51 <rosmaita> so should we limit the field to 64K / 4 ?
14:37:00 <eharney> i'm a bit unsure why our image metadata table uses a Text field when other tables use a String field for such things
14:37:38 <drencrom> glance uses a text field also
14:37:53 <eharney> i guess just because we wanted it to hold a larger value
14:40:12 <eharney> can we have the schema validator just check it as bytes instead of string length?
14:40:28 <drencrom> In theory it can still fail with a 16k chars limit if glance has a text shorter than 64k but larger than 16k chars
14:40:46 <rosmaita> i think eharney is onto something here
14:41:16 <rosmaita> we can have the custom validator determine the byte size and reject if necessary
14:41:49 <rosmaita> key think is that would give you a 400 before even contacting the DB
14:41:52 <rosmaita> *thing
14:42:49 <eharney> that looks like it shouldn't be too hard to do
14:43:37 <drencrom> I don't know how to do that but can help if you give me some pointers
14:43:52 <eharney> (add a new jsonschema validator method in validators.py etc and change the type to a new type instead of "string")
14:44:37 <rosmaita> drencrom: ping me if you don't see a good example in validators.py and we can figure something out
14:46:12 <drencrom> ok, will look into it, thanks
14:46:36 <rosmaita> great
14:49:14 <whoami-rajat> cool, is that all for your topic drencrom ?
14:50:43 <drencrom> yes
14:51:18 <rosmaita> to summarize, sounds like we are OK with increasing the value allowed because no database change is needed, but we would like a validator so that we can reject a string that will be too big in byte size
14:55:00 <whoami-rajat> thanks for the summary rosmaita
14:55:05 <whoami-rajat> that's all the topics we had
14:55:08 <whoami-rajat> let's move to open discussion
14:55:11 <whoami-rajat> #topic open discussion
14:55:56 <Tony_Saad> Hey guys can we get a review on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/874813/4?tab=comments https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/876284
14:57:01 <Tony_Saad> Also JeanPierre would like to discuss how to proceed on https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/2002535
14:57:01 <jungleboyj> Tony_Saad: Looking.  :-)
14:57:06 <Tony_Saad> Thanks!
14:59:28 <zaitcev> Tony_Saad: Why is it needed to document a generic feature like image volume cache in a driver documentation?
15:00:01 <zaitcev> Or actually, let's document my objection with a -1, not here.
15:00:12 <Tony_Saad> I believe it is documented in Dells other producs
15:01:11 <whoami-rajat> we're out of time
15:01:15 <whoami-rajat> thanks everyone for attending
15:01:16 <whoami-rajat> #endmeeting