13:00:01 #startmeeting nova api 13:00:02 Meeting started Wed Jul 13 13:00:01 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is alex_xu. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:00:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:00:05 The meeting name has been set to 'nova_api' 13:00:13 who is here today? 13:00:50 emm...only me? 13:00:55 o/ 13:01:17 johnthetubaguy: good afternoon :) 13:01:22 hello 13:01:31 I guess we will have short meeting today 13:01:35 o/ 13:02:07 I didn't have too much for update today also 13:02:20 I get some help for api-ref from the hackathon 13:02:41 alex_xu: great, i will start reviewing those tomorrow 13:02:46 I probably need catch up some review for api-ref 13:02:49 gmann_: thanks :) 13:03:09 I also didn't see any update for policy discovery 13:03:13 yeah, I saw quite a few patches drop there 13:03:18 \o 13:03:30 * edleafe is partly here - on a phone meeting too 13:03:32 oh policy discovery? what were we expecting to see there again? 13:03:45 #link https://review.openstack.org/322944 13:04:05 #link https://review.openstack.org/335667 13:04:18 both of them in WIP 13:05:02 ah, yeah 13:05:07 we need the second one 13:05:13 the first one would be good to have 13:05:21 I guess those are last two 13:05:38 johnthetubaguy: yea 13:06:00 i think the generation of policy file with default and override one 13:07:10 for api deprecation, i didn't get time to work on yet. too much events in this month 13:07:38 just back from hackathon, tomorrow will be Openstack China Days, then Mid-cycle... 13:07:50 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/deprecate-api-proxies 13:08:27 there is propose from oomichi, about how to avoid merge all of patches together 13:08:29 alex_xu: what is pending on those, jenkin failure i think 13:09:10 gmann_: I miss something for image links, and in quotas. Also need rebase, we just merged two API patches for FFE 13:09:26 o/ 13:09:31 alex_xu: ohk, if you like i can update those. 13:09:33 I am curious if we should just squash those all together after we reviewed them, so they fit in one API microversion? 13:10:26 gmann_: sure, i will appricate it 13:10:57 johnthetubaguy: I think that way works 13:11:13 alex_xu: cool. 13:11:20 I mean, I like the small chunks to review, but we want that to land as one, I guess 13:11:21 And after FFE, we have time to merge them 13:11:50 johnthetubaguy: yeah, i see you 13:11:51 johnthetubaguy: you mean single patch after review all separate ? 13:12:01 yeah 13:12:03 johnthetubaguy: which will be easy and fast to review 13:12:05 ok 13:12:21 +1, nice idea 13:12:28 I mean we could do a feature branch, but I think that needs some work from infra to set it up 13:12:49 yea, more time consuming 13:13:56 I think we probably can merge them after mid-cycle 13:14:46 or at the mid-cycle if its ready 13:14:59 +1 13:15:26 ok, i will updates those before mid cycle so that you guys can review and merge there 13:15:45 just saw edleafe's propose, about use 2.99 as placeholder, then correct the 2.99 in the last patch 13:15:50 johnthetubaguy: do you like that way? 13:16:16 as long as we don't raise the max_version, that could work 13:16:32 i.e. its not actually a valid version 13:16:52 yea, I didn't found any problem for that way for now 13:16:56 tempted to use 2.999, given 2.99 doesn't feel that far away 13:17:34 so let us go that way? 13:17:43 johnthetubaguy: 2.999999999 ? 13:17:50 :) 13:17:50 :) 13:17:51 :) 13:18:00 edleafe: sure :) 13:18:16 we are at 2.34 only i guess 13:18:31 gmann_: 2.35 as of yesterday 13:18:42 ok. 13:18:56 as long as no user can ever trigger it, we should be fine 13:19:08 yea 13:19:48 so we are cool? 13:19:54 I think we error out if you request something higher the max_version, so that protects us 13:19:55 maybe need a gate check? 13:20:09 Or will max_version do it? 13:20:25 johnthetubaguy: yes, we error out if you request higher than max_version for now 13:20:26 johnthetubaguy: yea 13:20:34 so we don't accidentally merge 2.999 13:20:47 unit test check would do no harm 13:20:54 alex_xu: will that cause every patch to fail Jenkins then 13:21:11 it's hard to get reviews with all that red on the patch 13:21:41 edleafe: emm...I guess unittest will be go 13:21:53 but it's worth to update one patch as that way, and to see what happened 13:21:56 i think it will fail and would not be able to merge 13:22:17 I tried on imgae_ref UUID and got failure 13:22:44 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338802/ 13:23:00 I used 2.99 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/327809/, but also updated max_version 13:23:09 had to update max_version - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338802/1/nova/api/openstack/api_version_request.py 13:23:17 we can't change max_version, thats user visible 13:23:28 yes, 13:23:35 johnthetubaguy: as a placeholder strategy 13:23:42 and without max_version change we can not merge patch 13:23:53 johnthetubaguy: that's why I thought a gate check would be better 13:24:22 edleafe: it will be a user interface then instead of place holder i think 13:24:27 gmann_: if the unitest only call the controller obj direclty, i remember there isn't a check for max_version 13:24:57 so we will fine for unittest 13:25:17 so the functional tests are failing on the patch, I guess it found why you can't increase max_version 13:25:48 alex_xu: but schema version needs microversion in request for calling controller method also 13:26:30 gmann_: can't they all point at a constant that is 2.999? 13:27:17 gmann_: there is max_version checks for schema version? 13:28:15 johnthetubaguy: alex_xu humm, i think while wrapping the controller method it needed but max_version check i need to see 13:28:29 i forgot where exactly it was causing the issue 13:28:40 gmann_: actually the currently patches also update max_version in the last one 13:28:40 I am OK introducing a new PARTIAL_API_VERSION=2.999 or something like that? 13:29:31 alex_xu: yea. 13:30:02 johnthetubaguy: may be we are making it more complicated with that 13:30:17 yea, i'm ok also. I added constant MAX_PROXY_API_SUPPORT_VERSION in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338802/1/nova/api/openstack/api_version_request.py, we just need change it to 2.999 13:30:31 alex_xu: thats the one I was thinking about 13:30:40 johnthetubaguy: yea 13:30:41 or we can just review all those separately and merge and rebase if any version bump in between 13:30:45 johnthetubaguy: how about 9.99? No way we'll ever hit that :) 13:31:00 edleafe: maybe 13:32:29 gmann_: i think 2.999 way isn't very hard 13:32:47 whatever we need rebase, and just need to change the 2.999 :) 13:33:30 alex_xu: ok. with MAX_PROXY_API_SUPPORT_VERSION? 13:33:31 the key thing is, don't expose this to the user, even if they request that specific version 13:33:42 gmann_: yeah 13:34:04 yea, m ok that way 13:34:19 cool :) 13:34:27 johnthetubaguy: yea 13:34:54 I think that is all i have, anything more we want to bring up? 13:35:27 #link https://review.openstack.org/340629 13:35:31 gmann_: this one ^ ? 13:35:33 alex_xu: if you can check this - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/340629/ 13:35:40 alex_xu: :) yea 13:35:41 gmann_: yea :) 13:35:57 johnthetubaguy: that is actually in Newton only so we do not need backort 13:36:27 gmann_: good point, I forgot 13:36:45 we just miss that one check in the tests, then we didn't catch that mistake :( 13:37:24 yeah, I was a bit worried about that 13:37:30 alex_xu: yea, that was caught on schema validation check in tempest 13:38:46 alex_xu: johnthetubaguy can we add hacking check for those at least returning of such HTTP success? but not sure how easy and correct that will be 13:39:00 yea, maybe worth to check, whether we have other place to use that way to return response 13:39:14 gmann_: that will be great if can 13:39:24 alex_xu: cool, i will check that 13:39:48 gmann_: or we didn't allow return response obj, only allow None or dict? 13:40:16 that can be done at our wsgi code 13:41:16 alex_xu: yea but for multiple return like that API 13:41:55 gmann_: ah, good point 13:43:03 let's to find a better way to avoid that 13:43:22 alex_xu: sure 13:43:34 * alex_xu adds a todo to think about that 13:43:52 ok, anything more we want to bring up? 13:45:04 nothing from my side 13:45:25 ok, let's end the meeting early 13:45:36 thanks alex_xu 13:45:39 thanks all! 13:45:45 Thanks. 13:45:52 #endmeeting