)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"acc3687e19a8eb650c0fc9921bf1bb8ae19d4467","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Update build exception when using unified limits"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"When unified limits is enabled invalid vtpm models and versions will be"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"caught by Nova-Api and throw a server fault. Updating the negative vTPM"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"test to check for different exceptions based on if unified limits has"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"been enabled."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"579a3598_6e156623","line":9,"range":{"start_line":9,"start_character":31,"end_line":9,"end_character":38},"updated":"2025-04-25 14:02:25.000000000","message":"ok i got a littel confused about what context invalid being used in at first\n\nwe have flavor extra spec validation to prevent you defining invalid flavor but its opt in by microvion\n\nso this negitive test is bypassing that by not opting in and then assert the failure later when you try to use it.\n\ni was wondering if invalid here was being used to mean unsupported by the qemu on the compute node but no it means not one of the allowed values.\n\nso invlaid is actully correct.","commit_id":"91239bc2926206647c081479b5231bdee8e0b35c"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"ef5caa274ce56b4f6854471428eb3d4b32bd4dec","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Update build exception when using unified limits"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"When unified limits is enabled invalid vtpm models and versions will be"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"caught by Nova-Api and throw a server fault. Updating the negative vTPM"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"test to check for different exceptions based on if unified limits has"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"been enabled."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"ff1c6722_8be11db0","line":9,"range":{"start_line":9,"start_character":31,"end_line":9,"end_character":38},"in_reply_to":"579a3598_6e156623","updated":"2025-04-25 14:56:00.000000000","message":"Acknowledged","commit_id":"91239bc2926206647c081479b5231bdee8e0b35c"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"acc3687e19a8eb650c0fc9921bf1bb8ae19d4467","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"When unified limits is enabled invalid vtpm models and versions will be"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"caught by Nova-Api and throw a server fault. Updating the negative vTPM"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"test to check for different exceptions based on if unified limits has"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"been enabled."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"Change-Id: I412f55327d475ee5bc7a9a34c9e5012d1de3c3e0"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"101a6b3c_aef8db7b","line":12,"updated":"2025-04-25 14:02:25.000000000","message":"this is unfortuneate but we dicusse this a little offline\n\nits because of how unified limists is parsing the resouces form the reuqest ealier in the validation.","commit_id":"91239bc2926206647c081479b5231bdee8e0b35c"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"ef5caa274ce56b4f6854471428eb3d4b32bd4dec","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"When unified limits is enabled invalid vtpm models and versions will be"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"caught by Nova-Api and throw a server fault. Updating the negative vTPM"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"test to check for different exceptions based on if unified limits has"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"been enabled."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"Change-Id: I412f55327d475ee5bc7a9a34c9e5012d1de3c3e0"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"ee0ed6f3_a9732afd","line":12,"in_reply_to":"101a6b3c_aef8db7b","updated":"2025-04-25 14:56:00.000000000","message":"Acknowledged","commit_id":"91239bc2926206647c081479b5231bdee8e0b35c"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"fd569c8ce0fb2cc88e03c44dd7181714bf629396","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Update build exception when using unified limits"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"When unified limits is enabled the unsupported vtpm models/version being"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"tested downstream in test_invalid_model_version_creation is now throwing"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"a new exception. This is because Unified Limits will call"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"from_request_spec and confirm the flavor extra_specs are valid earlier"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"in the path. The resulting error now throws a ServerFault from Nova-Api."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"Updating the test so that when Unified Limits are configured, it will"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":4,"id":"2ae66c68_68849b70","line":11,"range":{"start_line":9,"start_character":0,"end_line":11,"end_character":16},"updated":"2025-04-25 14:04:41.000000000","message":"actully no what you had orgianlly was correct.\n\nits an invalid value not an unsupproted one.\n\nthis is what i tough ou were orgianlly asserting but `2.0` is not in the valid enum of vaules the model can have becuase that actully a verion number not a model.","commit_id":"3f5839e759df33cd9813ed8a0ac691a98ed4c122"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"ef5caa274ce56b4f6854471428eb3d4b32bd4dec","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Update build exception when using unified limits"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"When unified limits is enabled the unsupported vtpm models/version being"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"tested downstream in test_invalid_model_version_creation is now throwing"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"a new exception. This is because Unified Limits will call"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"from_request_spec and confirm the flavor extra_specs are valid earlier"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"in the path. The resulting error now throws a ServerFault from Nova-Api."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"Updating the test so that when Unified Limits are configured, it will"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":4,"id":"cc7c3d05_22d8227b","line":11,"range":{"start_line":9,"start_character":0,"end_line":11,"end_character":16},"in_reply_to":"2ae66c68_68849b70","updated":"2025-04-25 14:56:00.000000000","message":"Acknowledged","commit_id":"3f5839e759df33cd9813ed8a0ac691a98ed4c122"}],"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":8864,"name":"Artom Lifshitz","email":"notartom@gmail.com","username":"artom"},"change_message_id":"30f486be778052061cf9ade6615703dc804916a7","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":4,"id":"b7f7a8ec_c0cea3f2","updated":"2025-04-25 16:43:31.000000000","message":"Will upgrade to +2+W once CI is sorted","commit_id":"3f5839e759df33cd9813ed8a0ac691a98ed4c122"},{"author":{"_account_id":8864,"name":"Artom Lifshitz","email":"notartom@gmail.com","username":"artom"},"change_message_id":"56b070129991a2156d80d2d03942983d1c9df16e","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":7,"id":"d12c525e_dd0c0e03","updated":"2025-04-25 16:41:53.000000000","message":"We probably need to land https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/whitebox-tempest-plugin/+/942511 first to fix CI...","commit_id":"8cc526424303eb3ae540bf0964e69d66206f0972"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"f19634a21ac57e59c76ae06ce0ae78014343ca47","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":7,"id":"504eb5ee_007c9899","updated":"2025-04-28 18:11:55.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"8cc526424303eb3ae540bf0964e69d66206f0972"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"8667fe76305102d9d4be03a69ed5316311a8a2c4","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":7,"id":"671c707c_69096bf4","updated":"2025-04-29 15:34:14.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"8cc526424303eb3ae540bf0964e69d66206f0972"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"5f41d4988f4a209c4eceafe08929b865a4087d0b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":7,"id":"9bfb6b30_eaa3a0c0","updated":"2025-04-25 16:25:54.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"8cc526424303eb3ae540bf0964e69d66206f0972"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"c387639e1d5a67cfbb9d2636896eb63d6dc79fe0","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":9,"id":"0cb89c97_03b15d00","updated":"2025-05-08 13:39:43.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"e056798f095f7758ed7221fcb8c9a25b6a33d692"},{"author":{"_account_id":8864,"name":"Artom Lifshitz","email":"notartom@gmail.com","username":"artom"},"change_message_id":"c678d47e58c387b8f827c99b68eb17a776cbef3c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":9,"id":"453ebfd3_f77e7c7d","updated":"2025-05-13 16:59:37.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"e056798f095f7758ed7221fcb8c9a25b6a33d692"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"86652d36c2e47e995c40db9fbe31186b30cc898a","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":9,"id":"c9cee008_21da4693","updated":"2025-05-05 15:13:23.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"e056798f095f7758ed7221fcb8c9a25b6a33d692"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"0af30a776b562d9d1d490279816529864f60a15e","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":9,"id":"fe628c1a_cd2f4097","updated":"2025-05-07 23:20:24.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"e056798f095f7758ed7221fcb8c9a25b6a33d692"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"c5dcd7ea7495236ff54be1c1d04cf54acf0a3726","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":9,"id":"c6145114_cac9e202","updated":"2025-05-08 00:24:31.000000000","message":"the job is failing because some of the cpu are offline\n\nhttps://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/7216e765717d44979ac26881080f21b8/log/controller/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt#14116\n\nnova.exception.Invalid: Invalid \u0027[compute] cpu_shared_set\u0027 config: one or more of the configured CPUs is not online. Online cpuset(s): [0, 1, 2, 3], configured cpuset(s): [4, 5]\n\nim not seeign the cpu state management enabeld in the config but even before that feature nova checked that the cores were online as we have never supproted listing cpus in cpu_share_set or cpu_dedciated_set if they are offlien before the intoduction fo that feature.\n\nit might be related ot one of our know bugs with this feature\ni.e. https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSPRH-10772 aka https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2085122\n\nbut looking mroe closely at the vm\n\nhttps://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/7216e765717d44979ac26881080f21b8/log/zuul-info/host-info.controller.yaml#531-535\n\ni think the actull issue is that they dont exsit\n\nthe job assume that we have 8 cpus\nbut in fact this vm has 4 and opedev do nto garrenty that we will have 8\n\nthis ran on a much newer amd epyc millan cpu\nopendev\u0027s policy is if they do not provie a vm with 8 cpus it will provide one with equal or better perfromcen\n\nso in this case each vm core shoudl be double the performace of the vms with 8 cpus\n\n\nthe fix is either to make our job tollerent to that which means going back to dynmicly genreatign the config.\n\nor add a preplaybok that will fail the job if the host has 4 cpus.\n\nif its failed in the prepalybook it will be retried.","commit_id":"e056798f095f7758ed7221fcb8c9a25b6a33d692"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"8955fd6ccdd2ed847f75a7c8e2c8d7e725e7cfe8","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":9,"id":"3a8faba8_e3b57ac3","in_reply_to":"7e9da0a9_56f64ed8","updated":"2025-05-08 13:39:34.000000000","message":"Is this a newer problem?  I don\u0027t think I\u0027ve seen this before in other ci checks.  As far as next steps, if this going to be a more common occurrence for the interim I agree with failing early.  If the deployment was able to account for 4 vs 8 cpus there would be several testcases skipped due to lack of cpus.  We\u0027d need to keep that into account if we want the CI to continue to report in the event of lower CPU count.","commit_id":"e056798f095f7758ed7221fcb8c9a25b6a33d692"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"9e5f648bb59c02c046404f1108801aca877744ec","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":9,"id":"7e9da0a9_56f64ed8","in_reply_to":"c6145114_cac9e202","updated":"2025-05-08 00:25:21.000000000","message":"they are not actully offlien cpus 4 and 5 dont exist but that looks the same as if they are offline in general","commit_id":"e056798f095f7758ed7221fcb8c9a25b6a33d692"}],"whitebox_tempest_plugin/api/compute/test_vtpm.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"acc3687e19a8eb650c0fc9921bf1bb8ae19d4467","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":121,"context_line":"        # combination model"},{"line_number":122,"context_line":"        flavor_specs \u003d {\u0027hw:tpm_version\u0027: \u00271.2\u0027,"},{"line_number":123,"context_line":"                        \u0027hw:tpm_model\u0027: \u00272.0\u0027}"},{"line_number":124,"context_line":"        vtpm_flavor \u003d self.create_flavor(extra_specs\u003dflavor_specs)"},{"line_number":125,"context_line":""},{"line_number":126,"context_line":"        if not CONF.compute_feature_enabled.unified_limits:"},{"line_number":127,"context_line":"            self.assertRaises(BuildErrorException,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"cbddfef7_5eeb36a4","line":124,"updated":"2025-04-25 14:02:25.000000000","message":"so if you were using 2.86 or latere it would fail here\n\nhttps://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/reference/api-microversion-history.html#id79\n\nhttps://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/validation/extra_specs/hw.py#L460-L474\n\nbecause we you are currently not enableing the flavor extra spec validation when defineing the flavor\n\ncan you leave a coment to that effect.","commit_id":"91239bc2926206647c081479b5231bdee8e0b35c"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"ef5caa274ce56b4f6854471428eb3d4b32bd4dec","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":121,"context_line":"        # combination model"},{"line_number":122,"context_line":"        flavor_specs \u003d {\u0027hw:tpm_version\u0027: \u00271.2\u0027,"},{"line_number":123,"context_line":"                        \u0027hw:tpm_model\u0027: \u00272.0\u0027}"},{"line_number":124,"context_line":"        vtpm_flavor \u003d self.create_flavor(extra_specs\u003dflavor_specs)"},{"line_number":125,"context_line":""},{"line_number":126,"context_line":"        if not CONF.compute_feature_enabled.unified_limits:"},{"line_number":127,"context_line":"            self.assertRaises(BuildErrorException,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"4abf2629_c2474c1c","line":124,"in_reply_to":"cbddfef7_5eeb36a4","updated":"2025-04-25 14:56:00.000000000","message":"Acknowledged","commit_id":"91239bc2926206647c081479b5231bdee8e0b35c"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"acc3687e19a8eb650c0fc9921bf1bb8ae19d4467","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":124,"context_line":"        vtpm_flavor \u003d self.create_flavor(extra_specs\u003dflavor_specs)"},{"line_number":125,"context_line":""},{"line_number":126,"context_line":"        if not CONF.compute_feature_enabled.unified_limits:"},{"line_number":127,"context_line":"            self.assertRaises(BuildErrorException,"},{"line_number":128,"context_line":"                              self.create_test_server,"},{"line_number":129,"context_line":"                              flavor\u003dvtpm_flavor[\u0027id\u0027],"},{"line_number":130,"context_line":"                              wait_until\u003d\u0027ACTIVE\u0027)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"a9cd82c4_e721e58e","line":127,"range":{"start_line":127,"start_character":12,"end_line":127,"end_character":49},"updated":"2025-04-25 14:02:25.000000000","message":"it woudl be nice if we coudl self.assertRaises(BuildErrorException or ServerFault, ...)\n\nbut looking at the docs that is not a thing\n\nthe only way to aovid this if would be\n\ne \u003d self.assertRaises(Excpetion,...):\nself.assertIn(type(e), [BuildErrorException,ServerFault ])\n\nit shorter but im not sure its better.","commit_id":"91239bc2926206647c081479b5231bdee8e0b35c"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"ef5caa274ce56b4f6854471428eb3d4b32bd4dec","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":124,"context_line":"        vtpm_flavor \u003d self.create_flavor(extra_specs\u003dflavor_specs)"},{"line_number":125,"context_line":""},{"line_number":126,"context_line":"        if not CONF.compute_feature_enabled.unified_limits:"},{"line_number":127,"context_line":"            self.assertRaises(BuildErrorException,"},{"line_number":128,"context_line":"                              self.create_test_server,"},{"line_number":129,"context_line":"                              flavor\u003dvtpm_flavor[\u0027id\u0027],"},{"line_number":130,"context_line":"                              wait_until\u003d\u0027ACTIVE\u0027)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"5740b7a8_db3e6208","line":127,"range":{"start_line":127,"start_character":12,"end_line":127,"end_character":49},"in_reply_to":"a9cd82c4_e721e58e","updated":"2025-04-25 14:56:00.000000000","message":"This is good to know and cleans it up a lot. The only tiny edge case I could see would be losing out on confirming that a ServerFault is thrown when Unified Limits are configured and visa versa. They are both throwing exception but I\u0027d imagine we want the test to continue to confirm its being caught earlier and not making it further in the path to a BuildErrorException.","commit_id":"91239bc2926206647c081479b5231bdee8e0b35c"}]}