| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-04-04 | |||
| 16:06:41 | mordred | yes. much more pleasant | |
| 16:07:07 | mordred | edleafe: we bought a used tesla that's grandfathered in to free supercharging - so road trips are free | |
| 16:07:21 | edleafe | schweet | |
| 16:07:22 | gtema | cooool | |
| 16:07:46 | mordred | also - used teslas are a great deal right now - they're still depreciating like they have gas engines in them | |
| 16:10:14 | elmiko | very cool about the used tesla | |
| 16:15:06 | gtema | that's dull not to fight with a hacke on a highway | |
| 16:15:14 | gtema | s/hacke/hacher/ | |
| 16:15:18 | mordred | I know. I'm getting old and lame | |
| 16:15:57 | cdent | mordred: you're totally out of bounds, this is the api-sig office hour. remote hackability is the whole point, yo! | |
| 16:16:29 | mordred | ooh - cookies! | |
| 16:16:32 | edleafe | is there a non-hackable auto-pilot system? | |
| 16:16:44 | elmiko | lol cdent | |
| 16:19:44 | dtantsur | but does it have a good API? | |
| 16:20:11 | gtema | I guess it is only good for black hackers | |
| 16:20:48 | elmiko | dtantsur asking the real questions ;) | |
| 16:22:00 | openstackgerrit | LIU Yulong proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add floating IP Port Forwarding commands https://review.openstack.org/650062 | |
| 16:22:07 | dtantsur | so, IIRC we have Thursday morning at the PTG, right? | |
| 16:22:32 | dtantsur | do we need to plan something? or will it be mordred and me drinking whisk^Wcoffee and hacking on things? :) | |
| 16:22:55 | gtema | me too | |
| 16:23:06 | edleafe | I'll be there too just to bug you guys | |
| 16:23:06 | gtema | (if PTG ticket will be finally clarified) | |
| 16:23:09 | openstackgerrit | LIU Yulong proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add floating IP port forwarding related methods https://review.openstack.org/650063 | |
| 16:23:42 | edleafe | gtema: IBM *finally* approved my travel last week. Only took them two months this time :) | |
| 16:23:48 | elmiko | yikes | |
| 16:23:48 | dtantsur | \o/ | |
| 16:23:55 | gtema | yo | |
| 16:24:02 | dtantsur | great, it sounds like we can even have some kind of agenda | |
| 16:24:30 | edleafe | "Item A: make jokes about elmiko" | |
| 16:24:39 | edleafe | "Items B-Z: repeat" | |
| 16:24:41 | dtantsur | it's a recurring item, like reviewing things | |
| 16:24:44 | dtantsur | right | |
| 16:24:46 | gtema | edleafe: as a Summit sponsor we get free tickets to Summit, but not PTG | |
| 16:25:03 | elmiko | edleafe: ++ | |
| 16:25:21 | edleafe | As a past PTG attendee I get a free ticket to the summit but not the PTG | |
| 16:25:24 | elmiko | i hope you take notes though, i could use a good laugh! | |
| 16:26:18 | dtantsur | elmiko: we'll write a spec and propose to our repo | |
| 16:26:42 | edleafe | elmiko: if people know their elmiko jokes are being recorded, they might hold back | |
| 16:27:14 | elmiko | haha | |
| 16:27:30 | elmiko | i definitely want elmiko joke guidelines, there has to be /some/ order here! | |
| 16:27:39 | dtantsur | and microversioning | |
| 16:27:59 | elmiko | wel obviously, how will now which joke version i am hearing XD | |
| 16:28:28 | elmiko | i also reserve the right to adjust the minimum acceptable microversion, so old jokes won't fly! | |
| 16:29:17 | edleafe | No - the guidelines clearly state that once you release an elmiko joke, you have to support it forever | |
| 16:29:32 | elmiko | hahaha | |
| 16:29:34 | dtantsur | :D | |
| 16:29:55 | elmiko | oh the maintenance /me draws hand to forehead | |
| 16:30:26 | dtantsur | do we want to give folks an opportunity to suggest less important agenda items? | |
| 16:30:45 | edleafe | dtantsur: well, I guess we sort of have to | |
| 16:30:48 | elmiko | XD | |
| 16:31:02 | dtantsur | edleafe: well, we can tell them we have serious business | |
| 16:31:48 | dtantsur | but yeah, anyone wants to start an etherpad maybe? | |
| 16:32:34 | edleafe | dtantsur: like this? https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-sig-ptg-train | |
| 16:32:48 | dtantsur | cheers! | |
| 16:33:39 | elmiko | hahaha | |
| 16:40:01 | dtantsur | okay, we have a few topics proposed, sweet! | |
| 16:43:53 | elmiko | ++ | |
| 17:05:21 | elmiko | catch y'all later o/ | |
| 17:05:42 | gtema | ciao | |
| 17:27:13 | openstackgerrit | Jeremy Houser proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Remove hard-coded "admin" in test_port https://review.openstack.org/650082 | |
| 17:28:00 | openstackgerrit | Jeremy Houser proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Remove hard-coded "admin" in test_port https://review.openstack.org/650082 | |
| 18:54:03 | openstackgerrit | Jeremy Houser proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Remove hard-coded "admin" in test_port https://review.openstack.org/650082 | |
| 19:14:24 | openstackgerrit | Jeremy Houser proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Remove hard-coded "admin" in test_port https://review.openstack.org/650082 | |
| 19:43:04 | openstackgerrit | Jeremy Houser proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Remove hard-coded "admin" in test_port https://review.openstack.org/650082 | |
| 20:17:48 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: Test _alternate_id logic https://review.openstack.org/379594 | |
| 23:00:58 | openstackgerrit | James E. Blair proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Expand on a brief error message https://review.openstack.org/650161 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-04-05 | |||
| 06:09:57 | stephenfin | mordred: Are we collecting things for osc 4.0? Is so, thoughts on converting the likes of 'openstack security group create' to 'openstack security-group create' (with aliases, maybe)? The former feels wrong 'openstack security' isn't a command and I think it was only done because of cliff's use of underscores in entry point names | |
| 08:22:05 | frickler | stephenfin: mordred: I'd say keep those consistent with "floating ip", "subnet pool" and others. you also most certainly don't want "security-group-rule create" in addition | |
| 08:23:13 | frickler | if you want to change something in that regard, my vote would be to make "key pair" instead of "keypair", because to me that is inconsistent with all the other variants and always makes me need two attempts to get right | |
| 10:16:03 | stephenfin | frickler: Oh yeah, I mean anything where the top level command ('openstack floating' would fall into this) doesn't make sense or means something entirely different ('openstack subnet' would fall into this) | |
| 10:46:01 | dtantsur | stephenfin: I think the idea is to keep it as close to a human language sentence as possible | |
| 10:46:37 | dtantsur | and it's not friendly to users to make them remember where we use dashes and where spaces | |
| 10:46:59 | dtantsur | like, 'security-group create' makes as much sense as security-group-create | |
| 10:58:43 | stephenfin | dtantsur: I'd think of it in terms of 'openstack [resource] [action]' | |
| 10:59:06 | stephenfin | So 'openstack security-group create' makes far more sense to me. Helps from an autocomplete perspective too | |
| 11:06:11 | openstackgerrit | Jeremy Houser proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Remove hard-coded "admin" in test_port https://review.openstack.org/650082 | |
| 11:15:16 | dtantsur | stephenfin: that's more correct technically, but more confusing to those who don't have a clear idea of what openstack resources are | |
| 11:15:36 | stephenfin | fair point | |
| 11:15:45 | stephenfin | Guess this isn't quite the no-brainer I thought it was :) | |
| 11:15:46 | dtantsur | also this simple schema can be quite confusing, e.g. when action has a complex subject, like "server add floating ip" | |
| 11:16:23 | stephenfin | yeah, nested resources are trickier | |
| 11:16:37 | stephenfin | 'server-floating-ip add' seems icky | |
| 11:17:37 | dtantsur | our schema is not without problems, of course. I still remember TripleO people once ending up with "openstack overcloud scale stack overcloud overcloud" :D | |
| 11:25:26 | mordred | wow. I just woke up to that sentence | |
| 11:27:46 | dtroyer | stephenfin: the multiple work resource names is intentional. 'security group' is the name | |
| 11:28:48 | dtroyer | keypair is unfortuante and I'm all for fixing that one, there are a couple more that I'd like to change too. we already did change ip floating to floating ip moving to 3.0, it isn't hard, and aliases are easy too, just add to setup.cfg whatever you like | |
| 11:29:04 | dtroyer | for a long time I kept the old verb-object format for commands that we started with... | |
| 11:30:20 | dtroyer | dtantsur: that is partyl a result of thinking you have to prefix every resource name, you don't… | |
| 11:48:28 | cdent | dtroyer: since you're about and in an osc naming frame of mind, your input on: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/640898/ would be most appreciated | |
| 11:48:46 | cdent | (see gibi's comment on ps5) | |
| 12:01:41 | mordred | gtema: re: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/649329 - something to think about - in the shade layer we put unknown object properties into a 'properties' property on the main object - largely to make it clear to people that they can't necessarily be depended on as part of the object model (this is a thing glance did in v1 and broke in v2) - now granted, we ALSO would leave them on the main body of the | |
| 12:01:43 | mordred | object so that people could do whatever if stict mode wasn't on | |
| 12:02:37 | mordred | gtema: in looking at that patch, I'm mostly pondering how it'll interact with the goal of being able to eventually get the shade methods to just return Resource objects - whether what you're doing there will make it harder or easier | |
| 12:03:06 | mordred | gtema: I don't have enough coffee in my blood yet to have smart thoughts - mostly wanted to word-vomit at you about that while I try to caffiene myself | |
| 12:03:10 | gtema | yes, it is clear to me this was done in shade/cloud. But we are not able to get "unknown" props for Image service | |
| 12:03:56 | gtema | and that somehow blocks normal switch from direct get/post/delete in the cloud._image services to proxy methods | |
| 12:04:19 | mordred | yeah. oh - I totally understand the motivation of the patch - I think I'm saying - I'm not sure we should put them on the object itself vs. making a magical properties attribute | |
| 12:04:31 | mordred | we should ABSOLUTELY expose the unknown stuff | |
| 12:05:55 | gtema | do you want to say that everything unknown should go dynamically under properties? | |
| 12:06:06 | mordred | MAYBE? I think I need more coffee :) | |