Open Stack

On 03/08, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On 8/3/20 7:55 AM, Lee Yarwood wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > $subject, I've raised the following bug:
> >
> > openstack-tox-lower-constraints failing due to unmet dependency on decorator==4.0.0
> > https://launchpad.net/bugs/1890123
> >
> > I'm trying to resolve this below but I honestly feel like I'm going
> > around in circles:
> >
> > https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bug/1890123
> >
> > If anyone has any tooling and/or recommendations for resolving issues
> > like this I'd appreciate it!
> >
> > Cheers,
>
> This appears to be broken for everyone. I initially saw the decorator
> thing with Cinder, but after looking closer realized it's not that package.
>
> The root issue (or at least one level closer to the root issue, that
> seems to be causing the decorator failure) is that the lower-constraints
> are not actually being enforced. Even though the logs should it is
> passing "-c [path to lower-constraints.txt]". So even though things
> should be constrained to a lower version, presumably a version that
> works with a different version of decorator, pip is still installing a
> newer package than what the constraints should allow.
>
> There was a pip release on the 28th. Things don't look like they started
> failing until the 31st for us though, so either that is not it, or there
> was just a delay before our nodes started picking up the newer version.
>
> I tested locally, and at least with version 19.3.1, I am getting the
> correctly constrained packages installed.
>
> Still looking, but thought I would share in case that info triggers any
> ideas for anyone else.
>
> Sean
>
>

Hi,

Looking at one of my patches I see that the right version of
dogpile.cache==0.6.5 is being installed [1], but then at another step we
download [2] and install [3] version 1.0.1, and we can see that pip is
actually complaining that we have incompatibilities [4].

As far as I can see this is because in that pip install we requested to
wipe existing installed packages [6] and we are not passing any
constraints in that call.

I don't know why or where we are doing that though.

Cheers,
Gorka.

[1]: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/49f226f8efb94c088cb2b22c46565d97/log/tox/lower-constraints-1.log#235-236
[2]: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/49f226f8efb94c088cb2b22c46565d97/log/tox/lower-constraints-2.log#148-149
[3]: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/49f226f8efb94c088cb2b22c46565d97/log/tox/lower-constraints-2.log#168-174
[4]: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/49f226f8efb94c088cb2b22c46565d97/log/tox/lower-constraints-2.log#202-203
[5]: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/49f226f8efb94c088cb2b22c46565d97/log/tox/lower-constraints-2.log#3