April 2020 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[qa][ptg] Virtual PTG planning
by Masayuki Igawa 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Hi team, Short summary: 1. Please take a look at the QA PTG etherpad[2] and put your name and topics there 2. Please vote on the doodle poll[3] Details: As we discussed in the office hours, we're now collecting topics[3] for the PTG[1]. And, we need to fix our slots for the PTG. We have now 5 topics[2], and we'll have some more, possibly. So, we'll need 2 or 3 hours slots for 2 days or more if we have more topics. Anyway, please fill out the doodle poll[3] if you'd like to participate in the PTG. And, please add your name and topics to the etherpad so that we can discuss them during the following office hours. [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-April/014126.ht… [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/qa-victoria-ptg [3] https://doodle.com/poll/5awstyshtquuwcq3 -- Masayuki

1 2

[manila][ptg] Victoria Cycle PTG in Vancouver - Planning
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Hello Zorillas and other interested Stackers, We've requested space to gather at the Open Infrastructure PTG event in Vancouver, BC between June 8th-11th 2020. This event gives us the opportunity to catch up in person (and via telepresence) and discuss the next set of goals for manila and its ecosystem of projects. As has been the norm, there's now a planning etherpad for us to collect topics and vote upon [1]. Depending on how much space/time we are budgeted, we will select and schedule these topics. Please take a look and add your topics to the etherpad. Thanks, Goutham [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/vancouver-ptg-manila-planning

1 1

[tacker][ptg] Virtual PTG Planning
by Yasufumi Ogawa 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Hi Tacker team, As talked in the last IRC meeting, we have decided to have vTPG on 2nd and 3rd June [1]. We have etherpad for the discussion [2], so please add your name and topics if you have any suggestions for the next release. - 02 June: 6am-8am UTC - 03 June: 6am-8am UTC [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tacker/2020/tacker.2020-04-28-08.07… [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/Tacker-PTG-Victoria Thanks, Yasufumi

1 0

[openstack-helm][ptg] Virtual PTG Planning
by Gage Hugo 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

As we discussed in Tuesday's meeting, we have schedules some tentative time-slots for the virtual PTG across multiple days: Current Time-Slots: - 1300 - 1700 UTC Tue June 2nd - 1300 - 1700 UTC Wed June 3rd We also have an etherpad for topics if anyone has anything they want to discuss. Hope to see you there! https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-helm-ptg-victoria

1 0

[security][ptg] Virtual PTG Planning
by Gage Hugo 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Hello, As discussed in today's meeting, the Security SIG has scheduled some tentative timeslots for the virtual PTG to discuss any topics. We also have an etherpad to fill out if anyone has anything they want to discuss. Hope to see you there! Current Timeslots: - 1500 - 1700 UTC Mon June 1st 2020 - 2100 - 2300 UTC Mon June 1st 2020 https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/security-sig-ptg-victoria

1 0

[ironic][redfish] Breaking (for us) underlying schema/behavior change and what do we do?
by Julia Kreger 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Greetings fellow awesome sentient beings, and the occasional text indexers! We have a growing conundrum with Redfish. A long time ago, in a red shifted galaxy inhabited by Redfish, a feature was defined early on in the DMTF specification defining a "BootSourceOverrideEnabled" field as part of the ComputerSystem Boot object[0]. This setting, in concert with the "BootSourceOverrideTarget" and "BootSourceOverrideMode" setting allowed Ironic to signal an override preference in regards to what device the machine should boot to. As time as moved forward, schema field descriptions were added, and notes further detailed (observable by looking at [1], see ComputerSystem 1.0.0, 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.8.0). One such case, at least depending on what field you looked at also noted that "BootSourceOverrideEnabled" was not possible with the "Continuous" setting, however that was only noted under the one time override option "UefiTargetBootSourceOverride" which is leveraged by the explicit "UEFITarget" target option, at least until ComputerSystem 1.8.0. In ComputerSystem 1.8.0, an explicit note was added into the description text for "BootSourceOverrideEnabled" detailing that one time override use was the only option for UEFI. The published documents also have not been very clear on this, but there are numerous documents on the subject so it seems very easy for the schema details note being added and enhanced in 1.8.0 drove vendors to begin to change the logic around their "BootSourceOverrideEnabled" option to represent what the current documentation detailed, regardless of their schema version. Also, the schema/api versions are disjointed and BMCs out there exist without some of the defined fields. It just kind of is our life with hardware. So why now? The ironic team has had reports recently, across multiple vendors, where with newer firmware versions beginning to implement the changes in schema 1.8.0, where it seems we will no longer be able to use the option we were using, which seemed logical at least when looking at the BMC conformance to the standard. And while some may view the fact it worked on multiple vendors as a regression, I'm sure they see it as a bug as it was seemingly never intended to work that way when we look at the "UEFITargetBootSourceOverride" field notes from the early schemas. tl;dr: As BMC's vendors add the newer schema fields and resulting behavior, the existing redfish driver's ability to assert persistent boot devices breaks. With all of that having been said, I think we should remove our persistent setting capability in our redfish driver, and back port the fix where possible. That being said, this is also a behavior change, so it is time to get everyone's thoughts, since we will need to stress that machines by default should boot from persistent storage instead of network by default. We also need to launch a long term effort to try and duplicate the setting capabilities through the other BMC interfaces/methods/settings, but the variation by vendor is what is going to make it very difficult until the latest redfish schema version is implemented by vendors. Of course, that too may be a while. Thoughts? -Julia [0]: DMTF Redfish Schema Supplement 2019.1a, Page 71: https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP0268_2019.1… or the 2016.2 version of the document, Page 16: https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP2046_2016.2… And the same information can be found in the and 2019.2, 2019.3 schema document versions. [1]: Latest schema bundle pack: https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP8010_2019.4…

2 3

[MURANO] DevStack Murano "yaql_function" Error
by İzzettin Erdem 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Hello folk, Is there anyone who used murano before? I am trying to install Murano on devstack stable/train release. When i try to deploy an environment, it throws an error. At murona-engine logs error is: "func.__yaql_function__ = fd: murano.dsl.dsl_exception.MuranoPlException: [AttributeError]: 'method' object has no attribute '__yaql_function__'" Any suggestioıns? Thanks. Regards.

3 4

[puppet][packaging] Switching to policy.yaml (over policy.json)
by Thomas Goirand 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Hi team! In the light of the discussion that recently happened in #openstack-nova, it looks like switching from a .json file to a .yaml file is what we should do. Indeed, the file generated in .json format, if used pristine with the nova.conf and without enforcing scope, makes a nova-api service that simply doesn't work. Please read https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1875418 for more insights. The issue is that both packages are generating a .json (at least in Debian and Ubuntu) and puppet expect a policy.json, not a policy.yaml. With the policy.yaml, we don't have the same problem as by default, all policies are commented out. Operators just need to uncomment to activate. So, my proposal is the following: before the final release of OpenStack, I will modify all Debian OpenStack packages to generate (and package) both policy.json and policy.yaml. Then puppet-openstack can switch over to the .yaml file, and uncomment only the parts that the operator sees as relevant. I also would like to add a policy.d folder by default in each package, where operators can override stuff. Just having the folder will be a sign to operators that they are invited to write stuff in there, and that it will not be overwritten by a package upgrade. Then what I would like to do, is get puppet-openstack to only write there, for example in /etc/nova/policy.d/my-custom-policy.yaml. The file in /etc/nova/policy.yaml will be marked as "CONFFILE" in Debian, meaning that dpkg will prompt for changes on upgrades, while what's in the policy.d will remain. Last, I do believe that the yaml files are a way more easy to handle with puppet than the .json counterpart. Indeed, we could use something like the .ini management thing, with the : (Semicolumn) sign replacing the = (equal) sign. Moreover, the .yaml files contain comments which the .json files are lacking, making it auto-documented for operators. The only reason why I didn't use .yaml files earlier in the Debian packages was that, somehow, loading them with the API didn't work. I confirm that now it looks like working (though I'd have to test if changing a value is taken into account, I didn't do that yet). Your thoughts everyone? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

2 1

[all] Curating the openstack org on GitHub
by Thierry Carrez 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Hi everyone, As you know, for practical and "code marketing" reasons, we maintain mirrors of the opendev.org/openstack repositories on GitHub: https://github.com/openstack/ A few months ago jroll and I took on the task of maintaining the "openstack" organization on GitHub... In particular pushing "moved" final commits to repositories that are now maintained elsewhere on Opendev, and marking them retired. It's all a bit of a challenge. GitHub does not let you set the "mirror" flag by API (you have to ask GitHub support to manually do it, and they don't like it when you ask for it to be set on 1,831 repositories). The "pinned repositories" UI fails miserably and does not let us select "Nova" (again, probably too many repositories, GitHub support does not have a solution for us). There are limited opportunities to describe the fact that we actually only use GitHub as a mirror, leading to confusion. For inactive repositories (no longer under OpenStack governance), the situation is even more confusing. Some are noted "MOVED" or "RETIRED" in their description, some have a closing commit (some others don't), some have the "archived" flag. Some don't have anything and appear active while they are not (see attached CSV for those who like data). There is also the openstack-dev and openstack-attic organizations, which are leftovers from ancient times. In summary, for a "code marketing" opportunity, it does not paint a great picture. I'd like to make the following suggestion: - aggressively delete all non-openstack things from the openstack org, keeping only official, active repositories - delete the openstack-dev and openstack-attic organizations We shied away from doing that in the past, mostly to not break people who may have cloned those repositories... But I think the benefits of cleaning up now outweigh the drawbacks. The reference code always exists at opendev.org anyway. Also maybe once we are back to a more reasonable number of visible repositories, the pins UI will work again. And GitHub will actually be OK with setting the mirror flag. Thoughts, comments ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

13 27

[neutron] network converting from flat to vlan
by Ionut Biru 29 Apr '20

29 Apr '20

Hi guys, I made a mistake a long time ago creating a flat network instead of vlan. Is there a way to convert this network to vlan? Did anyone try to do that and have a procedure in place? I'm running rocky. -- Ionut Biru - https://fleio.com

1 0