Open Stack

On 9/26/2016 5:49 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 9/26/2016 5:15 PM, Dave McCowan (dmccowan) wrote:
>> I don't know what triggered the update.  Our gates started breaking on
>> September 23, but I can't find a commit around that time that would have
>> caused this to happen.
>>
>> From: Clay Gerrard <clay.gerrard at gmail.com
>> <mailto:clay.gerrard at gmail.com>>
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
>> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:03 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Pecan Version 1.2
>>
>> I'm interested to hear how this works out.
>>
>> I thought upper-constraints was somehow supposed to work to prevent
>> this?  Like maybe don't install a brand new shiny upstream version on
>> the gate infrastructure test jobs until it passes all our tests?
>> Prevent a fire drill?  That bug was active back in July - but I guess
>> 1.2 was released pretty recently?  .... maybe I don't understand the
>> timeline.
>>
>> -Clay
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dave McCowan (dmccowan)
>> <dmccowan at cisco.com <mailto:dmccowan at cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     The Barbican project uses Pecan as our web framework.
>>
>>     At some point recently, OpenStack started picking up their new
>>     version 1.2.  This version [1] changed one of their APIs such that
>>     certain calls that used to return 200 now return 204.  This has
>>     caused immediate problems for Barbican (our gates for /master,
>>     stable/newton, and stable/mitaka all fail) and a potential larger
>>     impact (changing the return code of REST calls is not acceptable for
>>     a stable API).
>>
>>     Before I start hacking three releases of Barbican to work around
>>     Pecan's change, I'd like to ask:  are any other projects having
>>     trouble with
>>     Pecan Version 1.2?  Would it be possible/appropriate to block this
>>     version as not working for OpenStack?
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Dave McCowan
>>
>>
>>     [1]
>>     http://pecan.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changes.html
>>     <http://pecan.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changes.html>
>>     https://github.com/pecan/pecan/issues/72
>>     <https://github.com/pecan/pecan/issues/72>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>     Unsubscribe:
>>     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>
>> <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
> There is a bot that updates upper-constraints, so it was updated here:
>
> https://github.com/openstack/requirements/commit/21015dfb3c3e93222265721f589d11910a366f83
>
>
> Reviews on these are basically, if they pass CI they get merged, unless
> we're in an release candidate mode, which for master we aren't anymore
> (since master is now ocata).
>
> As fungi pointed out, there are some representative jobs run on these
> changes but it's not an exhaustive list, it's mostly the integrated-gate
> jobs, which barbican is not a part of which is how it slipped through.
>
> By the way, you're broken on stable/mitaka because barbican isn't using
> upper-constraints in barbican. Note the version of pecan in
> stable/mitaka is 1.0.4. Same story for stable/newton, pecan is 1.1.2 in
> stable/newton and is frozen.
>
> So a large part of the fix here is for barbican to use upper-constraints
> in it's unit test jobs. Looks like you can thank tonyb for doing this
> for you:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/358404/
>
> Which says it's also in stable/newton, so I don't know how you're busted
> in stable/newton.
>

This is why stable/newton is broken for you, you don't have this merged yet:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/371695/

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann