Re: [openstack-dev] Pecan Version 1.2

2016-09-27 Thread Hayes, Graham 
On 27/09/2016 01:36, Ryan Petrello wrote:
> Apologies for the trouble this caused.  As Dave mentioned, this change
> warranted a new major version of pecan, and I missed it.  I've reverted the
> offending commit and re-released a new version of pecan (1.2.1) to PyPI:
>
> https://github.com/pecan/pecan/commit/4cfe319738304ca5dcc97694e12b3d2b2e24b1bb
> https://github.com/pecan/pecan/commit/b3699aeae1f70b223a84308894523a64ede2b083
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pecan/1.2.1
>
> Once the dust settles in a few days, I'll re-release the new functionality in
> a major point release of pecan.
>
> On 09/26/16 09:21 PM, Dave McCowan (dmccowan) 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
>> https://github.com/pecan/pecan/issues/72
>>
>
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>

Thanks Ryan

Designate hit a small issue as well, so I proposed
https://review.openstack.org/377702 to allow 1.2.1
be installed, and block 1.2.

Its been approved, so it should be working its way to a
repo near you soon.

Thanks,

Graham

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Pecan Version 1.2

2016-09-26 Thread Ryan Petrello 
Apologies for the trouble this caused.  As Dave mentioned, this change 
warranted a new major version of pecan, and I missed it.  I've reverted the 
offending commit and re-released a new version of pecan (1.2.1) to PyPI:


https://github.com/pecan/pecan/commit/4cfe319738304ca5dcc97694e12b3d2b2e24b1bb
https://github.com/pecan/pecan/commit/b3699aeae1f70b223a84308894523a64ede2b083
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pecan/1.2.1

Once the dust settles in a few days, I'll re-release the new functionality in 
a major point release of pecan.


On 09/26/16 09:21 PM, Dave McCowan (dmccowan) 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
https://github.com/pecan/pecan/issues/72




__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



--
Ryan Petrello
Senior Developer, DreamHost
ryan.petre...@dreamhost.com

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Pecan Version 1.2

2016-09-26 Thread Matt Riedemann 

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.gerr...@gmail.com
<mailto:clay.gerr...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:03 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:openstack-dev@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)
<dmcco...@cisco.com <mailto:dmcco...@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-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

<http://openstack-dev-requ...@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-requ...@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/21015dfb3c3e9365721f589d11910a366f83


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


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Pecan Version 1.2

2016-09-26 Thread Matt Riedemann 

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.gerr...@gmail.com <mailto:clay.gerr...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:03 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:openstack-dev@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)
<dmcco...@cisco.com <mailto:dmcco...@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-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
<http://openstack-dev-requ...@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-requ...@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/21015dfb3c3e9365721f589d11910a366f83

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.


--

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Pecan Version 1.2

2016-09-26 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
On 2016-09-26 15:03:19 -0700 (-0700), Clay Gerrard wrote:
[...]
> 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?
[...]

There are some hopefully-representative jobs run against proposed
changes to upper-constraints.txt, but no way we could conceivably
run every job against them. Those jobs mostly attempt to determine
whether an update will wedge most projects but aren't likely to
catch an issue that impacts only one or a few.

What the upper constraints implementation _does_ give us, however,
is a central location we can quickly block breaking dep updates once
discovered rather than having to wait for them to propagate through
global requirements and get merged into tons of individual project
repos.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Pecan Version 1.2

2016-09-26 Thread Dave McCowan (dmccowan) 
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.gerr...@gmail.com<mailto:clay.gerr...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:03 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@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) 
<dmcco...@cisco.com<mailto:dmcco...@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
https://github.com/pecan/pecan/issues/72


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Pecan Version 1.2

2016-09-26 Thread Clay Gerrard 
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)  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
> https://github.com/pecan/pecan/issues/72
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] Pecan Version 1.2

2016-09-26 Thread Dave McCowan (dmccowan) 

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
https://github.com/pecan/pecan/issues/72

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev