| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-11-06 | |||
| 22:48:35 | efried | oh, no it's not at all | |
| 22:48:53 | efried | The previous version of these same docs had these same decorations. | |
| 22:48:54 | efried | stand by | |
| 22:49:00 | johnsom | Weil, in server create, the micro-versions aren't called out for those commands | |
| 22:49:06 | efried | https://docs.openstack.org/python-openstackclient/train/cli/command-objects/network.html#network-create | |
| 22:49:54 | efried | no, microversions aren't. That would arguably be a nice enhancement. Ideally it would somehow tie back into the client code to discover that automatically, rather than being hardcoded. | |
| 22:50:24 | efried | I'm just saying for neutron vs nova-net, it *was* called out, which is why I didn't see it being a viable path forward to stop doing that when the docs were generated. | |
| 22:51:12 | efried | also fwiw https://docs.openstack.org/python-openstackclient/train/cli/command-objects/role.html identity docs had v2 vs v3 markers. | |
| 22:51:21 | johnsom | were those static pages before? | |
| 22:51:22 | efried | that's major version of course, not microversion. | |
| 22:51:24 | efried | yes | |
| 22:51:29 | johnsom | ah | |
| 22:52:41 | efried | oh, and the way I found out this was even a thing was by trying to build the docs by running both paths. That gives errors on conflicting opts. If you look at the rest of the offending patch, you'll see where I had to put in some pretty weird "if docs build" conditions in some places. | |
| 22:53:04 | johnsom | Yeah, I saw those | |
| 22:53:47 | efried | anyway, as dtroyer implied, there's a right way and there's an expedient way. Unless you're signing up to do the former (I'm not) we're pretty much stuck doing the latter, even though it's kind of distasteful. | |
| 22:54:30 | johnsom | I think we can leave that nastiness in OSC. I'm just working on a way to allow passing that stuff into osc_lib in a more clean way, focused on the tags library for now. | |
| 22:54:58 | johnsom | Well, no good dead goes unpunished. I volunteered to do the tags library work... lol | |
| 22:55:25 | efried | for what it's worth, I played around with other "more clean" options when I was authoring the patch. | |
| 22:55:46 | efried | Believe it or not, this turned out to be the cleanest, from a DRY standpoint. | |
| 22:56:12 | johnsom | So you are advocating for leaving duplicate code in OSC and osc_lib? | |
| 22:56:42 | efried | oh, sorry, no; I'm advocating adding the enhance_help kwarg in osc-lib, properly documented. | |
| 22:57:07 | efried | Yeah, I guess there's two "expedient" solutions, but I was assuming "leave it like it is" (and abandon the removal patch) wasn't on the table. | |
| 23:14:17 | johnsom | Ugh, I really hate having to modify osc_lib again and start this cycle over and I'm not a fan of pulling forward this setup. | |
| 23:14:54 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/osc-lib master: WIP: Add enhance_help kwarg to tags option generators https://review.opendev.org/693267 | |
| 23:15:10 | efried | johnsom: well, fwiw there's the code side ^ | |
| 23:16:53 | efried | I'm out o/ | |
| 23:16:53 | efried | I'll let you sleep on it :) | |
| 23:24:51 | openstackgerrit | Michael Johnson proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Switch to using osc_lib.utils.tags https://review.opendev.org/662864 | |
| 23:25:50 | johnsom | Not sure those jobs are going to pick up that tags library hack patch, so mine is probably going to fail out even with the depends-on. | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-11-07 | |||
| 16:00:14 | elmiko | API SIG office hour is now starting | |
| 16:00:26 | efried | whee | |
| 16:00:50 | elmiko | hehe | |
| 16:01:22 | efried | does the API SIG extend its tentacles into osc ux? | |
| 16:02:34 | elmiko | not specifically, but we have had talks in the past about helping the user community if possible | |
| 16:02:42 | elmiko | sadly, that work never really panned out | |
| 16:12:00 | dtroyer | efried: I'm afraid all of the blame for OSC UX falls on my shoulders (except for putting the resource name in front of the verb. That I resisted for a long time) | |
| 16:13:15 | efried | dtroyer: I'm not slinging blame, I think it's pretty cool given the scope of what it needs to do. I was just going to solicit an opinion on the thing we were talking about last night with johnsom | |
| 16:13:57 | efried | and really ux where u is "developer" more than anything, though there are routes we could take where u is the docs consumer | |
| 16:14:33 | elmiko | efried: from that standpoint, the api-sig explicitly does not get into the business of regular "code" apis | |
| 16:14:42 | johnsom | OSC is a huge leap forward from the old clients. We have also got a lot of positive feedback about it for our project. Just saying.... | |
| 16:19:53 | johnsom | That said, yeah, the topic here is good-form for shared library method signatures. | |
| 16:21:13 | johnsom | efried FYI, it looks like the tips job on my patch with the depends-on did pass. | |
| 16:21:57 | johnsom | The others will not pass now until your osc-lib patch merges given the other changes. | |
| 16:22:12 | efried | johnsom: Okay, I hadn't looked yet this morning. IRL we would have to get it released and through u-c and required by python-openstackclient before merging. | |
| 16:22:13 | johnsom | Well, merges, releases, and upper-constraints merges | |
| 16:22:22 | efried | jinx | |
| 16:22:26 | johnsom | Yeah, all that | |
| 16:22:36 | efried | There was another osc-lib change I was looking for... | |
| 16:22:39 | johnsom | Thus my grumpy mood yesterday | |
| 16:23:43 | efried | oh, it was this: right now the generated docs from within python-openstackclient are still tagged with "This command is provided by the python-openstackclient plugin" | |
| 16:24:18 | efried | I was trying to fix that from osc-lib, but I think I found out it has to be fixed either from python-openstackclient itself or from cliff, or possibly both, I can't remember if I closed the gap all the way yet. | |
| 16:25:12 | efried | https://review.opendev.org/692465 | |
| 16:25:12 | efried | https://review.opendev.org/692464 | |
| 16:25:12 | efried | oh yeah, I ended up with this: | |
| 16:30:56 | dtroyer | efried: I gave that cliff review a +2 but you might want to remove WIP from the commit just for cleanliness sake. | |
| 16:31:06 | dtroyer | otherwise it looks good | |
| 16:31:45 | gtema | dtroyer, you are finally online at the same time as I. | |
| 16:31:53 | gtema | What about https://review.opendev.org/#/c/650374 - switch image to SDK | |
| 16:32:19 | gtema | I know it's huge, but we need to do something | |
| 16:32:57 | dtroyer | I'm still pondering on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/693267, I'm assuming it isn't done yet, update_tags_for_set() isn't touched... | |
| 16:33:57 | dtroyer | gtema: yes, it is huge and I haven't been able to get the kind of block of time to go through that yet. I also want to make sure we have decent enough functional tests to validate everything before and after (you may have that) | |
| 16:34:52 | gtema | I understand. Just want to get clear on that change to decide what/how to do next. | |
| 16:35:25 | gtema | I introduced in this change another sdk_utils, and wanted in the followup to clean it up in compute | |
| 16:36:01 | dtroyer | gtema: is that something that maybe belings in osc-lib? would plugins want it? | |
| 16:36:26 | gtema | well, this is something what any SDK based plugin might want | |
| 16:36:32 | dtroyer | we're gearing up to release osc-lib soon for the tags changes anyway | |
| 16:37:09 | gtema | should I propose adding it there then? | |
| 16:38:11 | dtroyer | if you think it is stable, sure. if it makes more sense to expand it to another API first to make sure it is 'done' then maybe wait. I'll try to take a look at that today | |
| 16:38:37 | gtema | well, it is there since network uses SDK, so yes, it is stable | |
| 16:39:16 | gtema | it's basically more or less just to kinda "show" SDK resource | |
| 16:39:33 | dtroyer | yeah, even if they don't belong in osc-lib network does have some things that should be generalized for osc itself | |
| 16:55:26 | efried | dtroyer: none of the update_tags_for_* methods are touched. How would they be? | |
| 16:56:01 | efried | dtroyer: I think the cliff WIP might have been because I wanted to add some kind of testing. | |
| 16:56:30 | dtroyer | efried: doh, right on update_*() | |
| 16:56:46 | efried | phew, cause I couldn't imagine how that would work :P | |
| 16:57:20 | dtroyer | cliff is used outside OpenStack so we're a bit more cautious about changes there, I don't see this one as an issue, but yeah, tests++ | |
| 16:57:41 | efried | dtroyer: also wanted to make sure stephenfin had a crack at the concept before I invested too much time in it. | |
| 16:58:02 | efried | dtroyer: btw, the other approach was to override Command etc. to provide a dummy App from within python-openstackclient | |
| 16:58:09 | efried | because that's what cliff is bouncing off of when it generates that line. | |
| 16:58:39 | efried | I tried doing that from within osc-lib but then the package is... osc-lib, and you get the message anyway :( | |
| 16:59:17 | dtroyer | yeah, there is a small set of things like that that can't move into osc-lib | |
| 16:59:19 | efried | also, the App superclass is *really* not designed to be "docs build" oriented, so that would be a serious hack. | |
| 17:00:00 | efried | so as long as stephenfin / other cliff maintainers are okay with "polluting" the config space with another option, this solution is reasonably simple and clean. | |
| 17:00:28 | efried | I'll go back and add tests if I get some time, but I'm not in a rush as I don't expect stephenfin to look until next week at the very earliest. | |
| 17:00:31 | elmiko | later all, have a good weekend o/ | |
| 17:00:35 | efried | o/ elmiko | |
| 17:02:01 | cdent | elmiko: | |
| 17:02:09 | cdent | hi | |
| 17:02:11 | cdent | that is all | |
| 17:02:44 | elmiko | hey cdent! =) | |
| 17:02:45 | gtema_ | looks like "That's all Folks" | |
| 17:13:08 | dtroyer | gtema_: so I'm just making time now, as that isn't as large as I remembered and I didn't realize you only did v2… | |
| 17:13:44 | dtroyer | the deal with image create from stdin isn a significant change and at a bare minimum needs to be release-noted. There are a few placed it would break scripts I've written | |
| 17:13:45 | gtema_ | yeah, this is exactly the next point - what do we want to do with v1 (drop or port it in followup) | |
| 17:14:17 | dtroyer | I don't want to drop v1, we'll need to convert it too eventuallly, I _REALLY_ want to get rid of glancelcient and it's weird deps | |
| 17:14:49 | gtema_ | for the moment create from stdin is supported, but not efficient | |
| 17:15:28 | gtema_ | ok, then I can work on v1 in a followup. I had nowhere a real v1 to test it works and didn't want change to explode | |
| 17:16:32 | dtroyer | yeah, that was supposed to be tested with other ancient APIs in that devstack-like mitaka cloud I was working on when starlingx destroyed my (work) life… | |
| 17:16:52 | gtema_ | what I find funny - in real usage OSC becomes faster in lots of cases, but osc tests are tiny bit longer | |
| 17:17:24 | gtema_ | the func-ones I mean | |