| === CyberJacob|Away is now known as CyberJacob | |
| [07:44] <jtv> Hey... getting that test failure again: | |
| [07:44] <jtv> One or more services are registered; this fixture cannot make a reasonable decision about what to do next. | |
| [07:44] <jtv> I bet allenap knows more about it. | |
| === CyberJacob is now known as CyberJacob|Away | |
| === Guest75668 is now known as wgrant | |
| === wgrant is now known as Guest89446 | |
| === Guest89446 is now known as wgrant | |
| [08:07] <allenap> jtv: Are you getting it sporadically, or is it repeatable? | |
| [09:01] <jtv> allenap: repeatable. | |
| [09:13] <bigjools> allenap: repeatable for me to | |
| [09:13] <bigjools> o | |
| [09:13] <jtv> allenap: the services are rpc, rpc-advertise, and nonce-cleanup. | |
| [09:13] <allenap> jtv: Can you point me to a branch and a pastebin? | |
| [09:13] <bigjools> I suspect a different timezone in my db as per the other bug | |
| [09:13] <allenap> of the error. | |
| [09:13] <jtv> allenap: the branch is trunk. | |
| [09:13] <allenap> Ah, right. | |
| [09:13] <jtv> Pasting the error... | |
| [09:17] <jtv> allenap: with a small tweak on my part to produce more helpful output (shortly to be up for review), it's http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/8043707/ | |
| [09:19] <jtv> I'm filing a bug. | |
| [09:19] <bigjools> allenap: btw, I'm so happy you pointed out expectThat | |
| [09:19] <bigjools> I can start killing all the crazy tuple comparisons | |
| [09:24] <jtv> allenap, bigjools: I filed this as bug 1356788. | |
| [09:24] <ubot5> bug 1356788 in MAAS "Test failure: “One or more services are registered” etc." [Critical,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1356788 | |
| [09:25] <allenap> jtv: Cool. I’m looking at it now. | |
| [09:26] <bigjools> jtv: will look at your branch now | |
| [09:26] <bigjools> I shall leave this here -> https://code.launchpad.net/~julian-edwards/maas/consider-static-range/+merge/230760 | |
| [09:53] <allenap> jtv, bigjools: I can reproduce that bug, sometimes. I have no idea how the test passes at all. | |
| === alexpilotti_ is now known as alexpilotti | |
| [09:56] <bigjools> allenap: winning | |
| [09:56] <allenap> jtv, bigjools: Actually, I’ve figured it out. | |
| [09:56] <jtv> ? | |
| [09:57] <allenap> self.addCleanup(eventloop.loop.reset) should be self.addCleanup(lambda: eventloop.loop.reset.wait(timeout)) | |
| [09:58] <jtv> Ah. You can probably pass additional arguments: self.addCleanup(eventloop.loop.reset.wait, timeout) | |
| [10:00] <bigjools> you can | |
| [10:01] <allenap> Sorry, it should be self.addCleanup(lambda: eventloop.loop.reset().wait(timeout)) | |
| [10:02] <allenap> (I missed the call to reset.) | |
| [10:03] <ezobn> Are there any timeouts for maas if it is not seeing the allocated node ? in my installation maas make several nodes in "ready" state after the some time when cloud-init on the nodes can't connect it to the maas. Can I manually reallocated nodes without reinstalling OS on them ? | |
| [10:18] <allenap> ezobn: MAAS is a bit stupid right now; it doesn’t really notice that a node has not come up. Fixing that is something we’re doing right now (along with a *ton* of other reliability related stuff). I don’t understand your second sentence; can you try rephrasing it? You can’t reallocate nodes to another user without releasing them; the other user will | |
| [10:18] <allenap> then have to install something. | |
| [10:22] <ezobn> allenap: So it was my suggestion ... what happened with domain ;-) Seems I was not right ... Actually in one day all nodes in the maas start to be in "Ready" state. So trying understand why ... | |
| [10:34] <allenap> ezobn: That sounds like it worked? | |
| [10:38] <ezobn> allenap: Yes, but it is servers currently thats using, so to continue use tham I have to remove maas from boot order ... | |
| [10:45] <ezobn> allenap: or allocate again those server via maas, install workload again ... | |
| [10:47] <ezobn> allenup: so for me really interesting is there some way to say maas that those servers was allocated and mark as allocated to certain user | |
| [10:50] <allenap> ezobn: If I understand correctly, then no, I’m afraid not. | |
| [12:36] <ezobn> allenup: sadly ... but do you know the situation when this change of nodes state from "alocated" to "ready" without call the "stop node" can be done ? | |
| === sfeole` is now known as sfeole | |
| === jhobbs_ is now known as jhobbs | |
| === lazyPower_ is now known as lazyPower | |
| === roadmr is now known as roadmr_afk | |
| === CyberJacob|Away is now known as CyberJacob | |
| === roadmr_afk is now known as roadmr | |
| === xmltok_ is now known as xmltok | |
| === wallyworld_ is now known as wallyworld | |