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. [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
