On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Eric Harney <ehar...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/19/2017 09:22 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: >> On 6/16/2017 8:58 AM, Eric Harney wrote: >>> I'm not convinced yet that this failure is purely Ceph-specific, at a >>> quick look. >>> >>> I think what happens here is, unshelve performs an asynchronous delete >>> of a glance image, and returns as successful before the delete has >>> necessarily completed. The check in tempest then sees that the image >>> still exists, and fails -- but this isn't valid, because the unshelve >>> API doesn't guarantee that this image is no longer there at the time it >>> returns. This would fail on any image delete that isn't instantaneous. >>> >>> Is there a guarantee anywhere that the unshelve API behaves how this >>> tempest test expects it to? >> >> There are no guarantees, no. The unshelve API reference is here [1]. The >> asynchronous postconditions section just says: >> >> "After you successfully shelve a server, its status changes to ACTIVE. >> The server appears on the compute node. >> >> The shelved image is deleted from the list of images returned by an API >> call." >> >> It doesn't say the image is deleted immediately, or that it waits for >> the image to be gone before changing the instance status to ACTIVE. >> >> I see there is also a typo in there, that should say after you >> successfully *unshelve* a server. >> >> From an API user point of view, this is all asynchronous because it's an >> RPC cast from the nova-api service to the nova-conductor and finally >> nova-compute service when unshelving the instance. >> >> So I think the test is making some wrong assumptions on how fast the >> image is going to be deleted when the instance is active. >> >> As Ken'ichi pointed out in the Tempest change, Glance returns a 204 when >> deleting an image in the v2 API [2]. If the image delete is asynchronous >> then that should probably be a 202. >> >> Either way the Tempest test should probably be in a wait loop for the >> image to be gone if it's really going to assert this. >> > > Thanks for confirming this. > > What do we need to do to get this fixed in Tempest? Nobody from Tempest > Core has responded to the revert patch [3] since this explanation was > posted. > > IMO we should revert this for now and someone can implement a fixed > version if this test is needed.
Sorry for delay. Let's fix this instead of revert - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/477821/ -gmann > > [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471352/ > >> [1] >> https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/?expanded=unshelve-restore-shelved-server-unshelve-action-detail#unshelve-restore-shelved-server-unshelve-action >> >> [2] >> https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/image/v2/index.html?expanded=delete-an-image-detail#delete-an-image >> >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
