Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
following what we got in automation.log
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:44:01.532505 #12017:923114] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([automation_task_4]) State=<State8> running  raised exception: <number of retries <201> exceeded maximum of <200>>
[----] I, [2018-10-10T06:45:54.688156 #12017:923114]  INFO -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) In State=[State2], invoking [on_entry] method=[/Transformation/TransformationThrottler.Watch]
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:45:54.728907 #12017:923114] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) State=<State2> running on_entry raised exception: <In State=[State2], on_entry Method [watch] not found in class [/transformation/transformationthrottler]>
[----] W, [2018-10-10T06:45:54.729151 #12017:923114]  WARN -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) Error in State=[State2]
[----] I, [2018-10-10T06:45:54.729303 #12017:923114]  INFO -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) In State=[State2], invoking [on_error] method=[/System/CommonMethods/
[----] I, [2018-10-10T06:45:54.931742 #12009:923114]  INFO -- : Q-task_id([automation_task_10]) <AEMethod [/ManageIQ/System/CommonMethods/MiqAe/WeightedUpdateStatus]> Starting 
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:45:55.232318 #12017:a6bfe2c] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) <AEMethod weightedupdatestatus> The following error occurred during method evaluation:
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:45:55.234454 #12017:a6bfe2c] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) <AEMethod weightedupdatestatus>   NoMethodError: undefined method `[]=' for nil:NilClass
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:45:55.237564 #12017:a6bfe2c] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) <AEMethod weightedupdatestatus>   /ManageIQ/System/CommonMethods/MiqAe/WeightedUpdateStatus:88:in `on_error'
/ManageIQ/System/CommonMethods/MiqAe/WeightedUpdateStatus:112:in `main'
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:45:55.246082 #12017:a6bfe2c] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) Method STDERR: /ManageIQ/System/CommonMethods/MiqAe/WeightedUpdateStatus:88:in `on_error': undefined method `[]=' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:45:55.247602 #12017:a6bfe2c] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) Method STDERR:     from /ManageIQ/System/CommonMethods/MiqAe/WeightedUpdateStatus:112:in `main'
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:45:55.249100 #12017:a6bfe2c] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) Method STDERR:     from /ManageIQ/System/CommonMethods/MiqAe/WeightedUpdateStatus:159:in `<main>'
[----] I, [2018-10-10T06:45:55.280756 #12017:923114]  INFO -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) <AEMethod [/ManageIQ/System/CommonMethods/MiqAe/WeightedUpdateStatus]> Ending
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:45:55.281398 #12017:923114] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) State=<State2> running on_error raised exception: <Method exited with rc=Unknown RC: [1]>
[----] I, [2018-10-10T06:45:55.282388 #12017:923114]  INFO -- : Q-task_id([service_template_transformation_plan_task_11]) Followed  Relationship [miqaedb:/Transformation/StateMachines/VMTransformation/
[----] E, [2018-10-10T06:44:01.532505 #12017:923114] ERROR -- : Q-task_id([automation_task_4]) State=<State8> running  raised exception: <number of retries <201> exceeded maximum of <200>>
I am guessing but is it something to deal with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623072 and pr ManageIQ/manageiq-content#417
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
I have tried this migration on QE infra (with RHV 4.2.7.2), I am also trying to reproduce this with devel infra, if we get same thing there then may be this bug
checking..
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
failed on devel infra too, it is definitely bug, you can take look at logs - vm name is ytale-rhel75-oct10
Fabien Dupont
@fdupont-redhat
@Yadnyawalkya I checked the Automate domains and we miss a PR: ManageIQ/manageiq-content#418. However, this PR is associated to BZ#1594196 which is targeted for CF 5.10.0. So, either we change BZ#1594196 to target 5.9.5, which will allow backporting, or we set target to 5.10.0 for ManageIQ/manageiq-content#417. @dmetzger57 @bthurber @bascar @simaishi calling out for your wisdom.
Kedar Kulkarni
@kedark3
@bthurber @smallamp ^^^
Dennis Metzger
@dmetzger57
Based on the funstionality being targeted for 5.10 and 5.9.5 is currently closed for additional BZs, I believe we leave the fix as 5.10. If the priority has changed and this functionality is required in 5.9.x, the next open (though it is currently scoped) 5.9 errata (5.9.6) is slated for GA on 12/12/2018.
Ghost
@ghost~56912bb516b6c7089cc1d2a7
The safest thing would be to target both for 5.10. I read a bit through the changes and it is not insiginificant and too much risk for 5.9.5. I am in agreement with Dennis. If it must come into 5.9.x then 5.9.6 is the appropriate place, but 5.10 is still my preference.
@fdupont-redhat ^^
and since 5.9.6 comes right before the holidays/shutdown and 5.10 just after you don’t really gain much in my book by doing 5.9.6
Fabien Dupont
@fdupont-redhat
@dmetzger57 @bascar Thanks. That's the answers I expected. Then we need to un-backport ManageIQ/manageiq-content#417. @simaishi how do we do that ? Do I have any action to do ?
Satoe Imaishi
@simaishi
@fdupont-redhat I'll take care of un-backport and BZ, so no action needed from you
Dennis Metzger
@dmetzger57
thanks @simaishi
Fabien Dupont
@fdupont-redhat
Thanks @simaishi
Fabien Dupont
@fdupont-redhat
And thanks @Yadnyawalkya for finding this.
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
:smile:
Greg Blomquist
@blomquisg
@vconzola @bthurber I was cleaning up some calendar events, and I accidentally removed today's API sync
can either of you send me the bluejeans number?
Aparna Karve
@AparnaKarve
2009361607
Greg Blomquist
@blomquisg
thanks @AparnaKarve !! :)
Aparna Karve
@AparnaKarve
@blomquisg sure! :)
Brett Thurber
@bthurber
@AllenBW https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1630446 it was mor about where the scheduling time comes from. The appliance or the end user's browser.
Allen Wight
@AllenBW
i would guess appliance, it takes the users input makes a time outta that, sets it on the item
Brett Thurber
@bthurber
cool
thanks!
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
The backport of https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-content/pull/417 is reverted.

This will now target 5.10 only as per Eng/PM decision. If we decide to fix this in 5.9.z in the future, please re-open this BZ.
so are we not going to fix this issue for 5.9.z? how migration will work if we don't add this changes in 5.9?
from the last issue we found on 5.9.5.1, we were missing this changes and hence we wanted it for 5.9.z too
@fdupont-redhat please confirm, and let me also know if I need create new BZ for it
Dennis Metzger
@dmetzger57
@Yadnyawalkya Are we now saying migrations are completely broken in 5.9.5 or is it still just “righrt size” changes (an RFE) are not in 5.9.5?
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
migration was completed broken last time, and as per what fabien said it was due to we forgot to backport 418 for 5.9
Dennis Metzger
@dmetzger57
@bthurber @fdupont-redhat are migrations completely broken without this RFE 5.9.5 BZ? Today is the 5.9.5 GA build and this is the first time I’m hearing 5.9.5 migrations are broken without this BZ
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
are we saying-> right size changes are in 417 and 418, so instead of adding 418 we revert 417 so migration should work as earlier at least for 5.9?
Brett Thurber
@bthurber
@Yadnyawalkya @dmetzger57 ManageIQ/manageiq-content#417 was unbackported for 5.9.5 and the agreement was this feature would land in 5.10.
Fabien Dupont
@fdupont-redhat
@bthurber @Yadnyawalkya @dmetzger57 The right-size feature implementation relies on ManageIQ/manageiq-content#418, which has been merged but the associated BZ (1594196) is targeted for 5.10. So it was decided to align ManageIQ/manageiq-content#417 on the same target, i.e. Hammer, and so it was un-backported for consistency.
Dennis Metzger
@dmetzger57
For my clarity, is known that migrations work with the “un-merge” changes, or will we not know until 5.9.5 is built and in QE?
Brett Thurber
@bthurber
@dmetzger57 we will need to QE it
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
Will check this thing in next 5.9 build and let you folks know if that un-backported thing works or not
@bthurber @fdupont-redhat ack, thanks for clearing this.
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
Update: running migrations on 5.10.0.19 (latest 5.10.z) and migration works very well with right size changes. @fdupont-redhat +1
Fabien Dupont
@fdupont-redhat
Thanks @Yadnyawalkya
Yadnyawalkya Tale
@Yadnyawalkya
Update: running migration on 5.9.5.2 and migration works well without right size changes
that means un-backporting worked, thanks @simaishi @fdupont-redhat +1
smallamp
@smallamp
@Yadnyawalkya that’s a relief.. thanks for the update
Aparna Karve
@AparnaKarve
Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at 7.41.31 AM.png