Open Stack

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 4:28 PM James Slagle <james.slagle at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 6:41 AM Marios Andreou <marios at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 9:41 PM James Slagle <james.slagle at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd like to propose that TripleO opt out of dependency management by removing tripleo-common from global-requirements.txt.  I do not feel that the global dependency management brings any advantages or anything needed for TripleO. I can't think of any reason to enforce the ability to be globally pip installable with the rest of OpenStack.
>>
>> To add a bit more context as to how this discussion came about, we
>> tried to remove tripleo-common from global-requirements and the
>> check-requirements jobs in tripleoclient caused [1] as a result.
>>
>> So we need to decide whether to continue to be part of that
>> requirements contract [2] or if we will do what is proposed here and
>> remove ourselves altogether.
>> If we decide _not_ to implement this proposal then we will also have
>> to add the requirements-check jobs in tripleo-ansible [3] and
>> tripleo-validations [4] as they are currently missing.
>>
>> >
>> > Two of our most critical projects, tripleoclient and tripleo-common do not even put many of their data files in the right place where our code expects them when they are pip installed. So, I feel fairly confident that no one is pip installing TripleO and relying on global requirements enforcement.
>>
>> I don't think this is _just_ about pip installs. It is generally about
>> the contents of each project requirements.txt. As part of the
>> requirements contract, it means that those repos with which we are
>> participating (the ones in projects.txt [5]) are protected against
>> other projects making any breaking changes in _their_
>> requirements.txt. Don't the contents of requirements.txt also end up
>> in the .spec file from which we are building rpm e.g. [6] for tht? In
>> which case if we remove this and just stop catching any breaking
>> changes in the check/gate check-requirements jobs, I suspect we will
>> just move the problem to the rpm build and it will fail there.
>
>
> I don't see that in the spec file. Unless there is some other automation somewhere that regenerates all of the BuildRequires/Requires and modifies them to match requirements.txt/test-requirements.txt?
>

I was looking at that in particular:

"tripleo-common>=7.1.0 # Apache-2.0" at
https://opendev.org/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/src/commit/fe2373225f039d795970b70fe9b2f28e0e7cd6a4/requirements.txt#L8

and in the specfile:

" 42 Requires:       openstack-tripleo-common >= 7.1.0" at
https://review.rdoproject.org/r/gitweb?p=openstack/tripleo-heat-templates-distgit.git;a=blob;f=openstack-tripleo-heat-templates.spec;h=36ee20fb8042bbdd254b4eab6ab1f3272bd8a6c5;hb=HEAD#l42

I assumed there was correlation there with the value originally coming
from the project requirements.txt - but perhaps that is wrong; I
realise now that the specfile is referencing
'openstack-tripleo-common'  the built rpm, not 'tripleo-common'.

Well OK, that was/is my biggest concern; i.e. we are getting value
from having this requirements compatibility check, and if we remove it
we will just end up having those compatibility problems further down
the chain.

On the flip side, it just doesn't seem to me to be that big a cost for
us to stay inside this check. We aren't running check-requirements job
on every posted change it is only ever triggered if you submit a
change to requirements.txt
https://opendev.org/openstack/requirements/src/commit/ce19462764940a4ce99dae4ac2ec7a004c68e9a4/.zuul.d/project-template.yaml#L16
.

>
>>
>> >
>> > One potential advantage of not being in global-requirements.txt is that our unit tests and functional tests could actually test the same code. As things stand today, our unit tests in projects that depend on tripleo-common are pinned to the version in global-requirements.txt, while our functional tests currently run with tripleo-common from master (or included depends-on).
>>
>> I don't think one in particular is a very valid point though - as
>> things currently stand in global-requirements we aren't 'pinning' all
>> we have there is "tripleo-common!=11.3.0  # Apache-2.0" [7] to avoid
>> (I assume) some bad release we made.
>
>
> tripleo-common is pinned to the latest release when it's pip installed in the venv, instead of using latest git (and including depends-on). You're right that it's probably what we want to keep doing, and this is probably not related to opting out of g-r. Especially since we don't want to require latest git of a dependency when running unit tests locally. However it is worth noting that our unit tests (tox) and functional tests (tripleo-ci) use different code for the dependencies. That was not obvious to me and others on the surface. Perhaps we could add additional tox jobs that do require the latest tripleo-common from git to also cover that scenario.

ack I see what you mean now about pip install => tagged release vs
dlrn current => git master/latest commit and also agree that is not
directly related to this discussion about the check-requirements jobs.

regards, marios

>
> Here's an example:
> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-tripleoclient/+/787907
> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-common/+/787906
>
> The tripleo-common patch fails unit tests as expected, the tripleoclient which depends-on the tripleo-common patch passes unit tests, but fails functional. I'd rather see that failure caught by a unit test as well.
>
> --
> -- James Slagle
> --