[03:51] Is there any way to config vms without iso, such as using python libvirt? === hjensas is now known as hjensas|afk === hjensas|afk is now known as hjensas === tds3 is now known as tds [13:36] punkgeek: How would you want to use libvirt to configure them? [15:27] Odd_Bloke: per https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/314/files pytest fixtures. do you think we need to worry about xenial/bionic support of capsys/caplog as we did with ua-client? [15:27] I forgot if I asked this question yesterday [15:27] blackboxsw: What do you mean by "worry about"? [15:27] (I did comment on your PR with a comment about caplog.) [15:27] Odd_Bloke: I saw a sample in ovirt that import cloud-init configuration. But I want this tool in python libvirt https://red.ht/2K1gBkn [15:27] And `capsys` is available in xenial. [15:29] punkgeek: Have you tried using that example? Does it fail for you? (This isn't an area I'm familiar with, apologies in advance for dumb questions. :) [15:30] blackboxsw: Sorry to expand on my previous comment: we should discuss caplog (and potentially using the separate python3-pytest-catchlog package on xenial), but I think that's orthogonal to documenting the current state of matters. [15:30] * blackboxsw just reads the responses on my schema PR. I was wondering if we had shortcomings we'd have to be concerned with given that caplog wasn't available on xenial. but you've answered that for me. we can use pytest-catchlog potentially [15:31] Odd_Bloke: sorry, was just reading the other context. and agreed it is orthogonal. [15:31] ~30 until cloud-init status meeting [15:50] Anyone can review this oneliner PR really quick? https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/315 [15:51] Really sorry for the hard ping on this, it's a super silly fix that was breaking on our tests and I need to backport it by tomorrow EOD :-D [15:51] blackboxsw, Odd_Bloke ^^ [15:51] otubo: sure. so what is that whitespace? [15:52] ohh shuffling placement [15:52] ok looking [15:52] reviewing [15:52] I'm about to be AFK for a while, but I'd like us to add a test that would have caught this. [15:53] (Not necessarily as part of the PR that fixes it, as you have time pressure on that.) [15:53] Odd_Bloke, sure! I'd be glad to include a test for that, like the day after tomorrow :-) [15:53] ^_^ [15:57] otubo: whats the redhat bugzilla for this bug here? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794664 [15:57] bugzilla.redhat.com bug 1794664 in cloud-init "[RHEL8] swapon fails with "swapfile has holes" when created on a xfs filesystem by cloud-init" [High,Assigned] [15:58] I'm just wondering as I want to cross reference it in the commit message that we land when merging [15:58] blackboxsw, yeah, I was just thinking about that. [15:59] blackboxsw, can you add the BZ (that's the one, BTW) upon merge? Or I should do something else, like a v2? [16:00] otubo: I can set the squash merged commit message at merge time [16:00] so no need for a fix on your end [16:00] rharper: do you recall what prefix we use in the footer for RH bugzillas? I'm not seeing any RH: in commit messages, but I though we had something. [16:00] at least for Suse [16:00] blackboxsw, actually the correct BZ is 1772505 [16:00] ahh thanks otubo [16:01] that one was for RHEL8, but the fix is actually for RHEL7 [16:01] blackboxsw: we can use whatever is useful for otubo ... I don't think we have any convention [16:01] rharper, blackboxsw nothing special for me, BZ# is normally what we do internally [16:01] blackboxsw: sometimes there's an LP bug which has a mirror link to an downstream bz [16:02] bug #1781781 [16:02] bug 1781781 in curtin "/swap.img w/fallocate has holes" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1781781 [16:10] blackboxsw, do we need Odd_Bloke for that or we can have a review/merge from rharper ? :-) [16:10] otubo: no I'll merge [16:10] otubo: this commit message ok with you?https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/RDXMwXxMmt/ [16:10] RBZ: prefix for redhat bugzilla? [16:11] blackboxsw, RHBZ is better I guess [16:11] +1 [16:11] blackboxsw, that's actually my fault. I got to the bottom of my backlog and found out this issue due to tomorrow. [16:12] no worries otubo, do you want to spend time adding the unit test today or land it and propose the unit test changes in a separate PR? [16:12] blackboxsw, and thank you very much for the commit :-) If we ever have a cloud-init summit this year, remember me to pay you a beer :-) [16:13] blackboxsw, can I add the test once I get this out? Like tomorrow would probably be ok. [16:16] merged otubo . ok will fast track a unit test PR once available. [16:16] thanks [16:17] blackboxsw, thanks a lot :) [16:17] no problemo [16:17] #startmeeting cloud-init status meeting [16:17] Meeting started Tue Apr 14 16:17:46 2020 UTC. The chair is blackboxsw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. [16:17] Available commands: action commands idea info link nick [16:18] hey folks, time for cloud-init community status meeting [16:19] \o/ [16:19] Right on time :-) [16:20] welcome again to our bi-weekly status meeting feel free to interject comments, questions, suggestions during this status meeting. Generally it is an opportunity for upstream to provide a frequent platform communication and drop-in discussion when a couple of upstream devs are available. [16:20] #chair Odd_Bloke smoser rharper powers [16:20] Warning: Nick not in channel: powers [16:20] Current chairs: Odd_Bloke blackboxsw powers rharper smoser [16:20] #chair powersj [16:20] Current chairs: Odd_Bloke blackboxsw powers powersj rharper smoser [16:20] our IRC channel topic carries the next planned status meeting for those that wish to participate. All are welcome to interject or drive converstation topics here [16:21] any objections to same time on Apr 28th? [16:21] nah that's a good day given we want to cut 20.2 then === blackboxsw changed the topic of #cloud-init to: pull-requests https://git.io/JeVed | Meeting minutes: https://goo.gl/mrHdaj | Next status meeting April 28 16:15 UTC | 20.1 (Feb 18) | 20.2 (Apr 28) | https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+filebug [16:21] ok topic set for next meetin [16:22] our last meeting minutes can be found on github at [16:22] #link https://cloud-init.github.io/status-2020-03-31.html#status-2020-03-31 [16:23] The topics we generally cover in this meeting are the following: Previous Actions, Recent Changes, In-progress Development, Community Charter, Upcoming Meetings, Office Hours (~30 mins). [16:23] #topic Previous Actions [16:23] none listed from last meeting [16:23] #topic Recent Changes [16:24] git commits landed in tip since Mar 31: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/VptqRBfVfJ/ found by git log --since 03-31-2020 [16:26] changes sport doc updates, otubo's cc_mount fix , better url handling for regions which contain underscores in their name and openbsd fixes from Goneri for passwd locks. [16:27] thanks for the contributions this round folks! [16:27] #topic In-progress Development [16:30] upstream is currently focused on getting in bug fixes, dropping remnants of py2 in tooling reviewing active PRs to get cloud-init in shape for the upcoming 20.2 release [16:31] community notice: as mentioned in the channel topic, Apr 28th is our upstream release date for 20.2 [16:31] community notice: we ask that pull requests or bugs that need resolution for 20.2 be up for review by Friday April 24th so there is time to review and merge those fixes. [16:32] active pulls indended for the release should be up in github at https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pulls [16:32] *intended* rather [16:32] #topic Community Charter [16:33] his section is generally reserved to discuss any general community goals for cloud-init, at last cloud-init summit we defined those goals as: [16:33] - datasource doc fixes [16:33] - json schema validation for each cloudinit/config/cc_*py modules [16:34] there are feature bugs created for these tasks at https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+bugs?field.tag=bitesize [16:34] #topic Office hours (next ~30 mins) [16:35] During office hours a couple of upstream devs will have eyes on this channel. Any questions, comments, branch reviews are fair game for discussion. [16:36] In leiu of active discussions, developers will be grooming the active pull request review queue to unblock branch authors. [16:37] Odd_Bloke: No it doesn't work. why there is no way to config cloud-init in kvm virtualization rather than iso, like vm xml file? [16:37] I'm getting through a belated review on https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/298 [16:42] punkgeek: like seeding ovf-env.xml? https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/blob/master/doc/sources/ovf/README [16:46] punkgeek: you might want to look at virt-install , they recently have added support for providing cloud-config to VMs; virt-install is a wrapper around creating VMs utilizing libvirt as a backend, https://athinapl.home.blog/2019/08/25/gsoc-2019-cloud-init-configuration-for-virt-manager-virt-install/ [16:54] punkgeek, or you can take a look at virt-lightning [16:54] punkgeek, it's basically a CLI to use libvirt+cloud-init [17:03] Goneri: review done. sorry for the delay on such a minor set of change requests https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/298/files# [17:09] https://github.com/CanonicalLtd/uss-tableflip/pull/45 I think comments are resolved [17:11] I think we are at about the turn of the hour for cloud-init status. I'm going to review https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/305 next [17:11] thanks all for tuning in. see you next time [17:12] #endmeeting [17:12] Meeting ended Tue Apr 14 17:12:01 2020 UTC. [17:12] Minutes: http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/cloud-init/2020/cloud-init.2020-04-14-16.17.moin.txt [17:25] it's tuesday? [17:25] i can't believe it's tuesday, when every day feels like tuesday [17:27] hahaha! [17:27] heya meena , welcome. :) [17:28] just completed another review for goneri https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/305/files#diff-1708fc6fbf7cc4ca958a7adab7ad615eR23 [17:41] meena: Thanks for the review on that doc PR! [17:42] rharper: and json schema PR is good for followup review https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/152 [17:42] yes meena thx for all the reviews on nearly every PR that is up. [20:20] rharper: this looks like bogus network configuration from a dhcp server lease response doesn't it? [20:20] 2020-04-07 02:51:55,948 - dhcp.py[DEBUG]: Received dhcp lease on eth0 for 10.54.62.43/255.255.255.255 [20:20] 2020-04-07 02:51:55,949 - __init__.py[DEBUG]: Attempting setup of ephemeral network on eth0 with 10.54.62.43/32 brd 10.54.62.127 [20:20] no [20:20] do you have the full lease dump ? [20:21] how can eth0 access broadcast addr 10.54.62.127 if subnet netmask is /32? [20:21] I don't need to broadcast; typically you'll also have a static route set [20:21] rharper: I don't just logs @ https://launchpadlibrarian.net/473747419/cloud-init.log [20:22] we dump the lease parts though I thought [20:22] it's ephermeral dhcp response constructs/log messages as it parses tmp dhclient lease during initial setup. [20:22] per the openstack bug from a few days ago [20:22] https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+bug/1871323 [20:22] Ubuntu bug 1871323 in cloud-init "cloud-init fails to add default route during _bringup_static_routes" [Undecided,Incomplete] [20:23] can we ask for the lease file? either it's a bogus lease; (I'm not sure about that) or we're parsing it in correctly [20:24] seeing statements like this from cloud-init seem invalid : Running command ['ip', '-family', 'inet', 'addr', 'add', '10.54.62.43/32', 'broadcast', '10.54.62.127', 'dev', 'eth0'] [20:24] yeah I can get that. [20:25] will request the tmp lease and provide reproducible instructions to ge tit [20:25] I think it's a bogus dhcp config on their network... but just guessing here [20:28] blackboxsw: well, let's confirm we're parsing it correctly, we could be putting the /32 on there ourselves [20:28] is this recent cloud-init or older release on non-Ubuntu ? [20:28] we added a redhat dhclient rfc parser last fall [20:29] blackboxsw the lease is there [20:29] option rfc3442-classless-static-routes 32,10,54,62,1,0,0,0,0,32,169,254,169,254,10,54,62,1,0,10,54,62,1 [20:30] 19.4.33, so latest xenial I think. [20:31] ohh right the lease is there in the initial bug file. [20:31] which specifies: [20:31] fixed-address 10.54.62.43; [20:31] option subnet-mask 255.255.255.255; [20:31] is that invalid given that the router is at option routers 10.54.62.1; [20:32] as subnet-mask should be something like 255.255.255.0 or .128 or something to give it visibility to the router right? [20:56] specifically, if their router is 10.54.62.1 the smallest possible subnet-netmask they can have is /26 to allow 10.54.62.43 to contact 10.54.62.1. so a netmask of 255.255.255.192 [20:56] will pose the question on the bug and see if I'm bungling something there [21:37] otubo, have you seen the comments on this https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/70#pullrequestreview-393312656