Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update rucio-clients package to the latest stable release (34.4 ?) #12032

Open
amaltaro opened this issue Jun 28, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #12201
Open

Update rucio-clients package to the latest stable release (34.4 ?) #12032

amaltaro opened this issue Jun 28, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #12201
Assignees
Labels
dependencies New Feature Technical Debt Used to track issues that address technical needs internal to WM team

Comments

@amaltaro
Copy link
Contributor

Impact of the new feature
WMAgent

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We have been using a client that was released in Nov/2022:

rucio-clients~=1.29.10

and there has been many other releases since then.
So we should definitely look into updating, which will likely bring in other updates as well, like the chryptographic library and others.

Describe the solution you'd like
Update rucio-clients package to (one of) the latest stable releases, maybe 34.4; but we might as well quickly touch base with the DM team to see if they have any suggestion on this update.

This update involves at least:

  • updating the requirements.txt in WMCore
  • building a new (test) image
  • running the DMWM set of test workflows
  • and ensuring that everything works properly (including a container level rule made by RucioInjector).

This will also affect central services, so whenever it gets deployed in dev/testbed, we better keep an eye on the microservices interfacing with Rucio.

Describe alternatives you've considered
None

Additional context
None

@amaltaro amaltaro added New Feature dependencies Technical Debt Used to track issues that address technical needs internal to WM team labels Jun 28, 2024
@vkuznet vkuznet self-assigned this Dec 9, 2024
@vkuznet vkuznet moved this from ToDo to In Progress in WMCore quarterly developments Dec 9, 2024
@vkuznet vkuznet linked a pull request Dec 10, 2024 that will close this issue
@vkuznet
Copy link
Contributor

vkuznet commented Dec 16, 2024

I start looking back how to upgrade rucio-clients and I discovered the following:

  • for python version 3.8 the latest rucio-clients version is 1.31.7, while
  • for python version 3.9-4.0 the latest rucio-clients version is 35.6.0

The version we use so far is 1.29.10. Therefore my question is do we have to go to version 1.31.7 which is the latest for python 3.8 or do you want to upgrade to latest version 35.6.0 but it requires python 3.9 and therefore we should start upgrade of entire WM stack to python 3.9. Until this major decision is made I doubt I can proceed here.

Also, for completeness the rucio-clients version are the following:

  • 1.31.xx
  • 32.xx.xx
  • 33.xx.xx
  • 34.xx.xx
  • 36.xx.xx

Therefore, even if we upgrade rucio-clients to 1.31 we will be 4 major version behind the newest one.

Also, I found at least one conflict:

The conflict is caused by:
    cmsmonitoring 0.6.10 depends on jsonschema~=3.2.0
    rucio-clients 35.6.0 depends on jsonschema>=4.20.0

which means we would require to upgrade CMSMonitoring package too.

@amaltaro
Copy link
Contributor Author

IMO, upgrading rucio-clients from 1.29 to 1.31 is a waste of effort.
Said that, I would suggest to put this issue back to the ToDo queue and start dealing with the Python 3.9 migration, to be addressed with: #12208

Or, we address the python3.9 migration in Q1/2025 and pick another medium priority issue from this quarter.
Please let me know what your thoughts are @vkuznet @anpicci and others.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dependencies New Feature Technical Debt Used to track issues that address technical needs internal to WM team
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants