| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-01-29 | |||
| 15:21:22 | bauzas | or delivered by other means | |
| 15:21:27 | dansmith | efried: stevedore is on the loader side, they don't have to do anything like that.. entry points are a stock python thing | |
| 15:21:27 | stephenfin | efried: Are snowflake extra specs a real thing people use? | |
| 15:21:50 | stephenfin | Far as I knew, extra specs were for scheduler filters and virt drivers | |
| 15:21:53 | sean-k-mooney | they use custom one for filter | |
| 15:21:57 | efried | f man, even if you managed to miss one of the stock ones | |
| 15:22:00 | dansmith | stephenfin: you can in conjunction with the json filter or yeah a custom scheduler filter | |
| 15:22:19 | dansmith | stephenfin: if you're writing a custom scheduler flter, you're doing a package, so throwing a validator in there makes plenty of sense | |
| 15:22:29 | stephenfin | If it's a custom filter, we're saying they're using a package already so no big deal | |
| 15:22:31 | stephenfin | dansmith: yeah | |
| 15:22:37 | gibi | my employer's downstream product has at least two snowflake extra spec | |
| 15:22:48 | gibi | but sure I can implement a python filter for that | |
| 15:22:49 | sean-k-mooney | same with a thrid party virt dirver | |
| 15:22:50 | dansmith | stephenfin: imagine the fame and fortune if you wrote up a nice blog post on how to do this super cleanly :D | |
| 15:23:00 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: shut yo' mouth! :D | |
| 15:23:11 | sean-k-mooney | :) | |
| 15:23:31 | stephenfin | If I can do one thing well, it's write lots of docs and bug people continuously to review them | |
| 15:23:39 | bauzas | scheduler filters are the exact reasons why we never constrained extra specs | |
| 15:23:42 | stephenfin | no issues there | |
| 15:24:06 | bauzas | so I guess 3rd-parties would *love* to consider filters and validation code to be considered equal | |
| 15:24:10 | sean-k-mooney | so that bring up stict vs permissive vs off | |
| 15:24:17 | bauzas | so they could package this at once | |
| 15:24:23 | stephenfin | efried: I don't think that's as big a deal as you think. Realistically, how often do people create new flavors | |
| 15:24:30 | sean-k-mooney | we could skip all non namespaced extra space or ones in a namespace we dont know about | |
| 15:24:37 | sean-k-mooney | in permisive mode at least | |
| 15:24:52 | stephenfin | They try create one, we fail because we don't recognize the spec, they report and bug and we add/backport the missing validator | |
| 15:24:59 | stephenfin | It's just a bug | |
| 15:25:21 | stephenfin | *report a bug | |
| 15:25:47 | dansmith | are you going to make admins able to create flavors that fail validation | |
| 15:25:48 | dansmith | ? | |
| 15:25:58 | stephenfin | dansmith: that's the question | |
| 15:26:11 | stephenfin | I want a microversion that starts failing extra specs that don't pass validation | |
| 15:26:19 | dansmith | if there is a &force=yes then that gives them a way past the validation if there's a bug | |
| 15:26:57 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: that is what is was kind of suggestin with &validate=strict|permissive|off | |
| 15:27:00 | stephenfin | and I'm arguing that ^ is unnecessary since we should be able to audit the extra specs we have in-tree | |
| 15:27:14 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: oh per-create, I thought you meant global config | |
| 15:27:26 | sean-k-mooney | no per request | |
| 15:27:40 | stephenfin | efried suggested global config. I said no cos config-driven API behavior is bad | |
| 15:27:42 | dansmith | stephenfin: yeah, I dunno.. I think some of them are complex enough that you might not be able to do that as well as you think | |
| 15:27:48 | dansmith | stephenfin: agree | |
| 15:28:31 | dansmith | stephenfin: but I think it's legit to have a validation=no per-request, but that can return 403 either because of policy or config if it's documented when you add it, no? so later we could turn that off or default it off | |
| 15:29:13 | stephenfin | hmm, that wouldn't be so bad | |
| 15:29:27 | dansmith | either way, I just think you might not want to assume you can enumerate every crazy way people have abused those extra_specs and having a bunch of angry people calling your home :D | |
| 15:29:45 | sean-k-mooney | the reason we would wont that is if we add this in 2.68 and in 2.69 we add another field to the flavor but we still want to disable validtion it would be nice to be able to turn it off | |
| 15:30:18 | bauzas | honestly, leave them time to change their flavors | |
| 15:30:21 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: yeah, I've been suggesting using the older microversion purely as a stop gap to allow us iron out the kinks | |
| 15:30:31 | dansmith | IMHO, and AFAICT, validation is *just* to help make the admin's life easier so they don't have to keep booting instances to test that they completely broke an extra_spec right? | |
| 15:30:42 | bauzas | also, are we proposing to fix existing embedded flavors ? | |
| 15:30:45 | dansmith | so being able to turn it off in an emergency doesn't seem like a bad thing to me | |
| 15:30:45 | sean-k-mooney | but that would not work if the thing i wanted to set was added in 2.69 | |
| 15:30:54 | stephenfin | This also won't break existing flavors. It'll only prevent them creating new broken flavors | |
| 15:30:55 | dansmith | you're not going to periodically fsck your flavors so, what does it matter? | |
| 15:30:58 | bauzas | stephenfin: I mean, instance's embedded flavors | |
| 15:31:30 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: creating or updating | |
| 15:31:40 | stephenfin | bauzas: Nope. Out of scope for this. This focuses purely on setting new flavor extra specs | |
| 15:31:47 | sean-k-mooney | you want to be able to do the valiation optionaly on flaovr updates too | |
| 15:32:03 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: that's true, if you're updating a flavor that currently doesn't pass validation | |
| 15:32:12 | stephenfin | We could look into doing that with a nova-manage command (or nova-audit) command in the future but I'm not even thinking about that at the moment | |
| 15:32:38 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Well, setting or updating a new extra spec | |
| 15:32:42 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: ya for not if you need to update embeded flavor resize | |
| 15:32:52 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: yes | |
| 15:33:03 | dansmith | er, wait, stephenfin are you just doing validation on the one spec you're setting during that operation or on the whole flavor as it would be with the spec set? | |
| 15:33:19 | stephenfin | dansmith: Just the one spec | |
| 15:33:23 | dansmith | ah okay | |
| 15:33:27 | bauzas | I need to reread the spec because I'm unclear of some bits | |
| 15:33:38 | stephenfin | I don't plan to e.g. audit the existing extra specs on a flavor when setting a new one | |
| 15:33:46 | stephenfin | gibi: o/ | |
| 15:33:49 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: the spec says that while there is a depency between some spec we wont enforce that | |
| 15:33:50 | dansmith | stephenfin: aren't there some specs that depend on each other, like being able to set something that isn't valid unless some other spec says you have that thing? | |
| 15:33:55 | dansmith | okay gotcha | |
| 15:33:59 | bauzas | OK, flavor set, there is | |
| 15:34:02 | gibi | o/ | |
| 15:34:06 | sean-k-mooney | we could add that in the future | |
| 15:34:08 | stephenfin | dansmith: There are but we can't enforce it at the API level | |
| 15:34:21 | dansmith | stephenfin: because some have co-dependency? | |
| 15:34:32 | efried | we would be able to enforce some interdependencies | |
| 15:34:42 | stephenfin | otherwise you'd have to set e.g. 'hw:cpu_policy' before 'hw:cpu_dedicated_policy' | |
| 15:34:42 | stephenfin | introduces a whole slew of ordering issues | |
| 15:34:43 | efried | but not things like "this extra spec is only relevant to the libvirt driver" | |
| 15:34:43 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: in some case we can but often the depency can be fulfiled by the image too | |
| 15:34:56 | dansmith | stephenfin: right, I dunno that that's bad necessarily | |
| 15:35:10 | dansmith | stephenfin: you just couldn't enforce that "X and Y have to be both present or both absent" I think | |
| 15:35:44 | dansmith | anyway, my concern over the update was if you were tweaking a flavor that currently doesn't pass and you can't get yourself out of trouble with single ops | |
| 15:35:51 | dansmith | sounds like that's not a thing | |
| 15:36:27 | sean-k-mooney | ya it should not be an issue in what is proposed for this cycle | |
| 15:36:35 | stephenfin | I could do that enforcement but I probably don't need to do it in the API | |
| 15:36:55 | dansmith | well, I'm not sure what the point is if not in the API :) | |
| 15:37:15 | sean-k-mooney | as i said in some cases the co depency can be fulfiled by the image so we often dont know if it will be fuliled until the boot request | |
| 15:37:24 | sean-k-mooney | so that a diffent level of validation | |
| 15:37:31 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: ah, that is a very good point | |
| 15:37:43 | stephenfin | oh, good point | |
| 15:37:44 | sean-k-mooney | if it a co depency that is purly fulfiled in the flavor | |
| 15:37:52 | dansmith | yup | |
| 15:37:57 | sean-k-mooney | maybe but that feels like a ux bug | |
| 15:38:11 | efried | that ship has sailed though | |
| 15:38:16 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 15:38:48 | stephenfin | anyway, I think having the registry to validate extra spec names and the separate validators to handle the values gets us an awful lot over what we have at the moment | |
| 15:39:35 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: but yes i agree with that statemnet | |
| 15:39:41 | stephenfin | and it's the lowest hanging fruit, which is nice :) | |
| 15:40:36 | stephenfin | I'm going to update the spec to drop the YAML idea in favour of entrypoints and also add the escape hatch qparam | |