Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Use test scenarios for interface type and auth version

On 4 January 2014 04:14, Frittoli, Andrea (Cloud Services) wrote: > Hi, > > > > I’m working on multi-keystone-api-version-tests which aims to provide the > ability to run tests using a configurable list of keystone API versions for > authentication. > > > > If two versions of the API are configure

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 4 January 2014 08:44, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > I understand that moving taskflow into oslo would avoid the policy decision > we have in place to not do symmetric gating on unreleased versions of things > not "owned" by the OpenStack project. However, I don't know if we want to be > testing

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

So another idea that was talked about on IRC. Taskflow exposes entrypoints for these storage backends (like your storage callback/interface idea). It currently provides 3 such 'default' backends [sqlalchemy, file/dir based, in-memory <--> mainly for testing]. A 4th one is in progress for icehous

[openstack-dev] [trove] mid cycle meetup

Howdy, In the spirit of getting together to get stuff done, Trove is having a mid cycle meetup in Austin, TX. We are having it Wednesday, February 19, 2014 to Friday, February 21, 2014, in downtown Austin at the Capital Factory, which is a hip startup incubator. See [1] for more information. The

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 01/03/2014 06:14 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: Since the library model is what most everyone else uses outside of openstack (I assume?) what can we do to get there so that this model works as well? Expanding dependencies recursively seems like it could help? This could then detect transitive depen

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

Since the library model is what most everyone else uses outside of openstack (I assume?) what can we do to get there so that this model works as well? Expanding dependencies recursively seems like it could help? This could then detect transitive dependency issues (and doesn't seem so hard to do).

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 01/03/2014 05:10 PM, Ivan Melnikov wrote: On 04.01.2014 01:29, Sean Dague wrote: On 01/03/2014 04:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] That's what made me think of the solution. But isn't setuptools in fact telling us that somehow the versions of things we expected to have installed are no lon

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 04.01.2014 01:29, Sean Dague wrote: > On 01/03/2014 04:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] >> That's what made me think of the solution. But isn't setuptools in fact >> telling us that somehow the versions of things we expected to have >> installed are no longer installed and so something *is* bro

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 01/03/2014 04:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Sean Dague mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: On 01/03/2014 03:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Sean Dague mailto:s...@dague.net>

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 01/03/2014 03:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Sean Dague > > wrote: >> >> On 01/03/2014 02:44 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 01/03/2014 03:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Sean Dague mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: On 01/03/2014 02:44 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow mailto:harlo...@yahoo-inc.com>

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 01/03/2014 02:44 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow > > wrote: >> >> Ok, I think I'm fine with that (although not really sure what that >> entails). >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 2014-01-03 14:44:40 -0500 (-0500), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] > It seems safer to gate changes to libraries against the apps' > trunk (to avoid making backwards-incompatible changes), and then > gate changes to the apps against the released libraries (to > ensure they work with something availab

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 01/03/2014 02:44 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow mailto:harlo...@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote: Ok, I think I'm fine with that (although not really sure what that entails). What does the living under the 'oslo program' change? Does that ent

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

I'd be up for that 'dual' gating. It would help make sure that nothing major is breaking in the next version as well as the version released on pypi isn't also causing problems. Although git head gating does seem odd, especially as git head/trunk is where things change (and should be allowed to

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Ok, I think I'm fine with that (although not really sure what that > entails). > > What does the living under the 'oslo program' change? > > Does that entail getting sucked into the incubator (which seems to be what > your graduating link is

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

Sounds good to me. Talked on #openstack-infra with some folks there and just awaiting next steps. Doesn't seem like should be anything to hard to adjust/move/... -Josh On 1/3/14, 11:27 AM, "Sean Dague" wrote: >On 01/03/2014 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: >> Ok, I think I'm fine with that (al

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-Dev] IDE extensions in .gitignore

On 2014-01-03 19:10:28 + (+), Sam Harwell wrote: > OpenStack does not have operational or administrative ownership > over the computers used by contributors. As such, the community > should not accept or promote any policy which suggests a > configuration that alters the behavior of systems

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 01/03/2014 12:45 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: Ok, I think I'm fine with that (although not really sure what that entails). What does the living under the 'oslo program' change? Does that entail getting sucked into the incubator (which seems to be what your graduating link is about). I don't thi

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [devstack-gate] Nominating Sean Dague for devstack-gate-core

On 2014-01-03 09:46:54 -0800 (-0800), James E. Blair wrote: [...] > I propose that we create a devstack-gate-core group, and to it we > add the core infrastructure team and Sean. I am enthusiastically, wholeheartedly in favor of this proposal. Sean's reviews and improvements for devstack-gate have

[openstack-dev] [infra] Unit tests, gating, and real databases

Hi there, As far as I understand, slaves that run gate-*-python27 and python26 jobs have MySQL and Postgres servers installed and running so we can test migrations and do functional testing for database-related code. I wanted to use this to improve TaskFlow gating, but I failed to find docs about

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [devstack-gate] Nominating Sean Dague for devstack-gate-core

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:46 AM, James E. Blair wrote: > Occasionally it becomes clear that a part of the project infrastructure > has its own community interested in it. Such is the case with > devstack-gate, which is the nexus of infra and openstack. Not only does > it interact with infrastruct

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-Dev] IDE extensions in .gitignore

OpenStack does not have operational or administrative ownership over the computers used by contributors. As such, the community should not accept or promote any policy which suggests a configuration that alters the behavior of systems beyond the scope of a local workspace used while working with

Re: [openstack-dev] neutron plugin for opendaylight

Hi Kyle, Thanks for the info, I'll try the setup and ping you/others on freenode in case I need any help. Regards, Vijay On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Kyle Mestery wrote: > On Jan 2, 2014, at 7:50 PM, Vijayendra BVS > wrote: > > > > [Apologies if mesg is duplicated] > > > > > > > > Hi Kyle/

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Turbo-hipster

Dan Prince writes: > - Original Message - >> From: "Michael Still" >> - commenting "recheck .*" >> - commenting "recheck migrations" > > With the growing interest in 3rd party testing systems would using 'recheck > turbo-hipster' make more sense here? > > I'm fine with 'recheck migratio

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

Ok, I think I'm fine with that (although not really sure what that entails). What does the living under the 'oslo program' change? Does that entail getting sucked into the incubator (which seems to be what your graduating link is about). I don't think its a good idea for taskflow to be in the 'i

[openstack-dev] [infra] [devstack-gate] Nominating Sean Dague for devstack-gate-core

Occasionally it becomes clear that a part of the project infrastructure has its own community interested in it. Such is the case with devstack-gate, which is the nexus of infra and openstack. Not only does it interact with infrastructure systems (in a surprisingly complex way) to prepare an integ

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Turbo-hipster

- Original Message - > From: "Michael Still" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:48:16 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Turbo-hipster > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Still wrote: > > On Fri, Ja

Re: [openstack-dev] [elastic-recheck] Thoughts on next steps

Sean Dague writes: > So my feeling is we should move away from the point graphs we have, > and present these as weekly and daily failure rates (with graphs and > error bars). And slice those per job. My suggestion is that we do the > actual visualization with matplotlib because it's super easy to

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

On 01/03/2014 11:37 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote: So taskflow was tested with the version of sqlalchemy that was available and in the requirements at the time of its 0.1 release (taskflow syncs it's requirements from the same global requirements). From what I remember this is the same requirement that

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

So taskflow was tested with the version of sqlalchemy that was available and in the requirements at the time of its 0.1 release (taskflow syncs it's requirements from the same global requirements). From what I remember this is the same requirement that everyone else is bound to: SQLAlchemy>=0.7

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 01/03/2014 08:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Tim Bell wrote: Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more appropriate for the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more when someone proposes a change they suspect could have an operations impact, they could highlight this

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Javascript checkstyle improvement

On 01/03/2014 03:10 AM, Maxime Vidori wrote: > Someone said Grunt? Actually - funny story - we're currently working through some use of grunt and friends for storyboard, and as a result of that I've been learning about how it all hangs together. From what I can tell, I think the path to directly

Re: [openstack-dev] neutron plugin for opendaylight

On Jan 2, 2014, at 7:50 PM, Vijayendra BVS wrote: > > [Apologies if mesg is duplicated] > > > > Hi Kyle/Team, > > > > I’m looking at open daylight support in openstack and see the relevant > blueprint for the neutron plugin for ODL at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdowsQSYBirS634R

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ceilometer] Vertica Storage Driver Testing

On 1/2/14, 7:06 PM, "Sean Dague" wrote: >On 01/02/2014 08:36 PM, Robert Collins wrote: >> On 3 January 2014 14:34, Robert Collins >>wrote: >>> On 3 January 2014 12:40, Herndon, John Luke >>>wrote: On 1/2/14, 4:27 PM, "Clint Byrum" wrote: >>> >>> I don¹t think it woul

Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon] "import only module" message and #noqa

On 01/03/2014 10:35 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: > On 03/01/14 16:18, Russell Bryant wrote: >> On 01/03/2014 10:10 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: >>> I think that we can actually do a little bit better and remove many of >>> the #noqa tags without forfeiting automatic checking. I submitted a >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon] "import only module" message and #noqa

On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 10:18:58AM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 01/03/2014 10:10 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: > > I think that we can actually do a little bit better and remove many of > > the #noqa tags without forfeiting automatic checking. I submitted a > > patch: https://review.openstack

Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon] "import only module" message and #noqa

On 03/01/14 16:18, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 01/03/2014 10:10 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: >> I think that we can actually do a little bit better and remove many of >> the #noqa tags without forfeiting automatic checking. I submitted a >> patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64832/ >> >> This

[openstack-dev] [requirements] - taskflow preventing sqla 0.8 upgrade

Given that sqla 0.9 just came out, I wanted to explore, again, what the state of the world was with sqla 0.8 (especially given that Ubuntu and Red Hat are both shipping 0.8 in their OpenStack bundles) - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64831/ The answer is not great. But more importantly, the

[openstack-dev] [qa] Use test scenarios for interface type and auth version

Hi, I'm working on multi-keystone-api-version-tests which aims to provide the ability to run tests using a configurable list of keystone API versions for authentication. If two versions of the API are configured, each test would be run using the two versions. In the gate, where we're sho

Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon] "import only module" message and #noqa

On 01/03/2014 10:10 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: > I think that we can actually do a little bit better and remove many of > the #noqa tags without forfeiting automatic checking. I submitted a > patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64832/ > > This basically adds a h302_exceptions option to tox

Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon] "import only module" message and #noqa

On 30/12/13 16:10, Gabriel pettier wrote: > So Tatiana pointed > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-June/thread.html#9993 > to me, and from there i went on to read > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-August/thread.html#13074 > > and i can see valid po

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On 01/03/2014 09:44 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Thierry Carrez mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> wrote: Tim Bell wrote: > Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more appropriate for the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more wh

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Tim Bell wrote: > > Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more > appropriate for the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more when > someone proposes a change they suspect could have an operations impact, > they could

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] [qa] oslo.config generator scrambling tempest config files

On 01/03/2014 08:07 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Sean, > > Do you already have this in tempest copy of the code? > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60401/ - that will help going > forward. > > -- dims We did not, syncing now. It's sort of a bummer that the code isn't registration order. As we

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional changes that break backwards compatibility

Tim Bell wrote: > Is there a mechanism to tag changes as being potentially more appropriate for > the more ops related profiles ? I'm thinking more when someone proposes a > change they suspect could have an operations impact, they could highlight > this as being one for particular focus. > > H

[openstack-dev] [Glance] Passing error data in Glance exceptions?

Hi All, At the moment the GlanceException class has only a static "message" member which holds the error string. As a result higher level modules (e.g. API) are unable to translate a lower level exception to a more meaningful user-facing message - they either have to construct a totally new me

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] [qa] oslo.config generator scrambling tempest config files

Sean, Do you already have this in tempest copy of the code? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60401/ - that will help going forward. -- dims On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > So maybe I only just noticed it, but we moved to using the oslo.config > generator in Tempest, and it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Tuskar CLI after architecture changes

On 21.12.2013 06:10, Jay Pipes wrote: On 12/20/2013 11:34 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Radomir Dopieralski's message of 2013-12-20 01:13:20 -0800: On 20/12/13 00:17, Jay Pipes wrote: On 12/19/2013 04:55 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: On 14/12/13 16:51, Jay Pipes wrote: [snip] Inste

[openstack-dev] [oslo] [qa] oslo.config generator scrambling tempest config files

So maybe I only just noticed it, but we moved to using the oslo.config generator in Tempest, and it's largely succeeding at creating really large config diffs and moving sections around all over the place. Exhibit A: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60434/14/etc/tempest.conf.sample Which means it

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ceilometer][Oslo] Consuming Notifications in Batches

On 01/02/2014 10:46 PM, Herndon, John Luke wrote: On 1/2/14, 11:36 AM, "Gordon Sim" wrote: On 12/20/2013 09:26 PM, Herndon, John Luke wrote: On Dec 20, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: On 12/20/2013 05:27 PM, Herndon, John Luke wrote: Other protocols may support bulk consumption.

Re: [openstack-dev] django-bootstrap-form & django 1.4 / 1.5

On 01/02/2014 03:33 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: > On 12/30/2013 08:31 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Currently, in the global-requirements.txt, we have: >> >> Django>=1.4,<1.6 >> django-bootstrap-form >> >> However, django-bootstrap-form fail in both Django 1.4 and Django 1.6. >> >> What's th

Re: [openstack-dev] Novnc switch to sockjs-client instead of websockify

On 01/03/2014 01:03 AM, Ben Nemec wrote: > On 2014-01-01 00:33, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering if it would be possible for NoVNC to switch from >> websockify to sockjs-client, which is available here: >> >> https://github.com/sockjs/sockjs-client >> >> This has the advantage of

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Javascript checkstyle improvement

Someone said Grunt? - Original Message - From: "Matthias Runge" To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Friday, January 3, 2014 9:52:48 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Javascript checkstyle improvement On 01/03/2014 09:37 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: > [snip] > > This i

Re: [openstack-dev] MySQLdb situation with the gate

On 02/01/14 17:41 -0600, Monty Taylor wrote: On 01/02/2014 12:48 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: Hey all! This morning, we experienced our first systemic breakage of the gate of 2014! There are a few reasons for this, which are related to pip and virtualenv making new releases. The new releases do WO

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][qa] Parallel testing update

I have already a patch under review for the quota test, for which I adopted the shortest-diff approach. As regards Robert's suggestion, the problem we have there is that the test uses a dedicated tenant, but it does not take into account the possibility that at some point the dhcp agent will create

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Javascript checkstyle improvement

On 01/03/2014 09:37 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: > [snip] > > This is actually not a problem at all, because the way jshint works now, > we have to explicitly list the files to be checked against those > rules. That means, that we can only check our own code, and not the > included libraries. O

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Common SSH

On 02/01/14 11:17 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 26/12/13 20:05 +0200, Sergey Skripnick wrote: Hi all, I'm surprised there is no common ssh library in oslo so I filed this blueprint[0]. I would be happy to addr

Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Javascript checkstyle improvement

On 03/01/14 08:17, Matthias Runge wrote: > On 12/27/2013 03:52 PM, Maxime Vidori wrote: >> I send this mail to talk about Javascript coding style improvement, >> like python has pep8, it could be interesting to have some rules for >> javascript too. JSHint provides some rules to perform this and I