It looks like Magnum-UI only has one xstatic package in their
requirements that isn't already in Horizon's requirements (and
therefore is superfluous), and that's xstatic-magic-search, which has
been replaced in Horizon by pulling magic search into the Horizon tree
(we forked because maintaining our own extensions against the package
was getting out of hand - we'd basically rewritten a large proportion
of the code).
I would recommend that the Magnum-UI project remove all xstatic
packages from requirements.txt
Richard
On 7 February 2017 at 14:17, Tony Breeds <t...@bakeyournoodle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:39:41AM +1100, Richard Jones wrote:
>> Hi requirements team,
>>
>> We've had a downstream packager come to us with issues packaging the
>> Horizon RC as described in this bug report:
>>
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1662180
>>
>> The issues stems from the requirements file having several xstatic
>> package minimum versions specified that are no longer compatible with
>> Horizon, and the RDO build system honors those minimum version
>> specifications, and boom!
>
> This is a specific case of OpenStack provides poor tools for
> testing/validating
> minimum requirements. This is a thing we started trying to fix in Ocata but
> the work is slow going :( I'm a little confused how this wasn't caught
> sooner
> by RDO (given they would appear to have been testing the minimums for
> xstatic-*)
>
>> Rob Cresswell has proposed a patch to bump those minimum versions up
>> to the versions specified in upper-constraints.txt:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/429753
>
> That review seems to adjust all Xstatic packages where the minimu != the
> constrained version which is probably more than is required but it doesn't
> actually increase the knock-on effects so it seems like a good idea to me :)
>
> Looking at the projects that are affected by Rob's review:
>
> Package : xstatic-angular [xstatic-angular>=1.3.7] (used by 3 projects)
> Package : xstatic-angular-bootstrap
> [xstatic-angular-bootstrap>=0.11.0.2] (used by 3 projects)
> Package : xstatic-angular-gettext [xstatic-angular-gettext>=2.1.0.2]
> (used by 3 projects)
> Package : xstatic-bootstrap-scss [xstatic-bootstrap-scss>=3.1.1.1] (used
> by 3 projects)
> Package : xstatic-d3 [xstatic-d3>=3.1.6.2] (used by 3 projects)
> Package : xstatic-font-awesome [xstatic-font-awesome>=4.3.0] (used by 3
> projects)
> Package : xstatic-jasmine [xstatic-jasmine>=2.1.2.0] (used by 3 projects)
> Package : xstatic-jsencrypt [xstatic-jsencrypt>=2.0.0.2] (used by 3
> projects)
> Package : xstatic-rickshaw [xstatic-rickshaw>=1.5.0] (used by 3 projects)
> Package : xstatic-smart-table [xstatic-smart-table!=1.4.13.0,>=1.4.5.3]
> (used by 3 projects)
> Package : xstatic-term-js [xstatic-term-js>=0.0.4.1] (used by 3 projects)
> openstack/horizon [tc:approved-release]
> openstack/karbor-dashboard []
> openstack/magnum-ui []
>
>
> Package : xstatic-bootswatch [xstatic-bootswatch>=3.3.5.3] (used by 1
> projects)
> openstack/horizon [tc:approved-release]
>
> And obviously RDO
>
> This will mean that Horizon will need an RC2, and any packaging/distro testing
> for horizon (and plugins/dashboards) will need to be restarted (iff said
> testing was done with an xstatic package not listed in
> upper-constraaints.txt[1])
>
> I tried to determine the impact on magnum-ui and karbor-dashboard and AFAICT
> they're already using constraints. The next thing to look at is the release
> model which is:
> magnum-ui:
> type: horizon-plugin
> model: cycle-with-intermediary
> karbor-dashboard:
> type: unknown
> model: unknown
>
> I think this means it's safe grant this FFE as the affected plugins aren't
> necessarily in a stabilisation phase.
>
> So as far as I can see we have 2 options:
> 1. Do nothing: there will be other cases that minimums are not functional.
> RDO have tools and data to fix this in there own repos so we're not
> actually blocking them
> 2. Take the patch, and accept the knock on effects.
>
> I'm okay with taking this FFE if Karbor and Magnum PTLs sign off here (or on
> the review)
>
>> Additionally to the above I will be proposing a patch to Horizon's
>> documented processes to ensure that when an xstatic upper-constraints
>> version is bumped we also bump the minimum version in
>> global-requirements to avoid this sort of thing in the future.
>
> Cool. That'll help
>
> Yours Tony.
>
> [1] We've communicated that u-c should be the source here before
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
