Open Stack

On Thu, Jun 2, 2022, at 12:54 PM, Artem Goncharov wrote:
> Thanks Jeremy, will try to analyze the trace.
>
> This is not too extensive, but better then silent pin without 
> possibility to even notice that.
>
> I see that there are generally not enough deep tests for Openstack 
> driver in Zuul since mostly issues appear in Prod.  I will to try to 
> invest some time there.

We do functional testing against a devstack cloud. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned every cloud is just sufficiently unique that there are always corner cases that devstack can't catch. In general what we are able to test is that we can upload an image to devstack then boot that image and ssh into it. But then different clouds support different image upload methods and networking and even hypervisors. We do our best but once you get to the variety of clouds in the wild there is a lot more opportunity to find bad assumptions.

>
> Artem
>
> ----
> typed from mobile, auto-correct typos assumed
> ----
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022, 21:47 Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>> On 2022-06-02 21:12:33 +0200 (+0200), Artem Goncharov wrote:
>> [...]
>> > I listen to complains carefully, and that is the reason for R1.0
>> > not to exist as of now.
>> [...]
>> 
>> It's probably also worth pointing out, from a user experience
>> perspective, that we anticipated backward-incompatible changes in
>> 1.0.0 and so merged an openstacksdk<1 pin in nodepool's
>> requirements.txt file. Unfortunately, instead the
>> backward-incompatible changes were released as 0.99.0 so when the
>> container images for our launchers updated we started getting
>> another error back from all of the Rackspace regions we're using
>> (traceback attached).
>> 
>> I'm happy to file a bug report on that if nobody has beaten me to
>> it, but further diagnostics will probably have to wait until after
>> summit travel since we've rolled back to 0.61.0 for now.
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Stanley