Open Stack

On 9/15/23 13:26, Stephen Finucane wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-09-15 at 13:07 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 9/13/23 15:39, Stephen Finucane wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2023-09-13 at 09:21 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As you may know, and to my great frustration, I'm not the maintainer of
>>>> SQLAlchemy in Debian, even though OpenStack is the biggest consumer of
>>>> it. The current maintainer insists that he wants to upload SQLA 2.x in
>>>> Unstable, potentially breaking all of OpenStack.
>>>>
>>>> At the present moment, if I understand correctly, we're not there yet,
>>>> and Bobcat doesn't have such a support. It would be ok for me, *IF*
>>>> there are patches available on master, that I could backport to Bobcat
>>>> and maintain in the debian/patches folder of each project. However, the
>>>> biggest current annoyance, is that I have no idea where we are at. Are
>>>> we close to such a support? Is there a list of patches to apply on top
>>>> of Bobcat that is maintained somewhere?
>>>>
>>>> Please enlighten me... :)
>>>
>>> I think you figured this out on IRC this morning, but the vast majority (though
>>> not all) of the patches are available at the sqlalchemy-20 topic in Gerrit [1].
>>> I've been working on this for almost 2 years now and have most of the core
>>> projects well on their way but not everything is complete, as you'll tell from
>>> that list. I have a canary patch [2] that I've been using to spot missing
>>> services. I plan to pick up the Manila work again early in C, but could do with
>>> help removing the use of autocommit in Heat and the weird test failures I'm
>>> seeing in Cinder [3]. We also need reviews of the Masakri series (Is that
>>> project dead? I can't tell). Once those are addressed, I _think_ we might be
>>> done but who knows what else we'll find...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> [1] https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:sqlalchemy-20+is:open
>>> [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/879743
>>> [3] https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:sqlalchemy-20+is:open+project:openstack/cinder
>>
>> Thanks for your work, really!
>> And thanks for the details above.
>>
>> Now, not sure how much this is related, but I've seen that the new
>> oslo.db 14.0.0 breaks:
>> - freezer-api
>> - trove
>> - cloudkitty
>> - watcher
>>
>> Is there any plan to fix oslo.db, or the above projects? Maybe revert
>> some commits in oslo.db? Can someone explain to me what's going on for
>> this as well?
> 
> oslo.db has intentionally *not* been bumped to >= 13.0.0 in upper-constraints
> because it introduces many breaking changes that are not compatible with
> SQLAlchemy 2.x. Conversely, oslo.db < 13.0.0 is simply not compatible with
> SQLAlchemy >= 2.x. As such, we can't bump oslo.db until the various projects
> have been fixed which is the same as what we're seeing with SQLAlchemy 2.x.
> 
> Fortunately projects that adopt to I have been pushing patches to various
> projects that add a "tips" job for testing main/master branches of SQLAlchemy,
> Alembic, and oslo.db, e.g. [1][2][3][4]. The Neutron folks were well ahead of
> the curve as usual and also have their own (which is where I got the idea from).
> The projects you mention above could do with an equivalent job and my guess is
> that the process of getting there will highlight quite a bit of work that they
> need to do. They need to start at that asap (and tbh really should have started
> at it a long time ago as they've had over 2 years of a warning [5]).
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephen
> 
> [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/barbican/+/888308
> [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/886229
> [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/886152
> [4] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/889066
> [5] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-August/024122.html

FYI, I also fell into the trap of castellan 4.2.0. I'm writing this here 
for others *not* to do the same mistake as me: do not upgrade, or Cinder 
will fail its unit tests, and only 4.1.0 is the upper bound. Switching 
back to 4.1.0 made Cinder build correctly for me.

The good thing with castellan is, I forgot to upload it to Experimental, 
so to the contrary of oslo.db, it's okish for me ... :)

I hope that helps others,
Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)