Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-sdks - 2017-03-01
10:03:42 reedip_ amotoki: I needed the link, I got it from history
10:04:00 amotoki reedip_: the link is pasteed in the OSC PTG page
10:04:04 reedip_ amotoki: I am fine with both "floating ip set port" and "floating ip set"
10:04:33 amotoki reedip_: honestly my current vote is 'set port' :)
10:04:33 reedip_ amotoki: Currently , there is no SET option in NeutronClient for Floating IP
10:04:45 amotoki reedip_: yeah, there is no.
10:05:00 reedip_ amotoki: so what we can do is , change the name of the class to SetFloatingIPPort
10:05:03 amotoki reedip_: we have description field now.
10:05:17 amotoki reedip_: it is okay to me if create command supports it later.
10:05:18 reedip_ amotoki: so that if there is ever a requirement in the future, we can consider it later
10:05:33 amotoki reedip_: okay
10:06:05 amotoki reedip_: it is just for curiosity. thanks for your time
10:06:27 reedip_ :)
10:29:47 openstackgerrit Reedip proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: "floating ip set/unset port" for OSC https://review.openstack.org/383025
11:04:28 openstackgerrit Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add "qos-policy" option to "port create" & "port set" https://review.openstack.org/419236
11:11:29 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/439362
13:17:22 sambetts Hi openstackclient team, I'm hitting an issue on stable/mitaka, my CI has been failing since https://github.com/openstack/requirements/commit/808355f7ddd29f834531bfa6ead7ad01fbe37fb6 merged
13:19:31 sambetts when I have 2.3.1 installed I get this error during devstack: [localhost] out: 2017-02-28 22:24:49.692 | DEFAULT_USER_AGENT = "openstacksdk/%s" % openstack.__version__
13:19:34 sambetts [localhost] out: 2017-02-28 22:24:49.692 | AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute '__version__'
13:19:50 sambetts reverting to 2.3.0 fixes this issue
13:49:15 openstackgerrit Qiming Teng proposed openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Add wait_for_xxx methods to cluster proxy https://review.openstack.org/439490
14:56:12 openstackgerrit Qiming Teng proposed openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Change version of hacking in test-requirements https://review.openstack.org/439636
14:58:11 openstackgerrit Qiming Teng proposed openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Add wait_for_xxx methods to cluster proxy https://review.openstack.org/439490
15:05:11 openstackgerrit Pavlo Shchelokovskyy proposed openstack/openstackclient master: Explicitly depend on python-openstackclient https://review.openstack.org/439641
15:38:54 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Change version of hacking in test-requirements https://review.openstack.org/439636
15:45:21 elmiko etoews, edleafe, looks like i've got a conflict with tomorrow's meeting. just a heads up
15:52:40 edleafe elmiko: ack
16:18:32 openstackgerrit Nakul Dahiwade proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: OSC Network Flavor Profile https://review.openstack.org/396783
16:30:24 openstackgerrit Shashank Kumar Shankar proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Introduce neutron flavor associate, disassociate to OSC https://review.openstack.org/403907
16:33:42 openstackgerrit Shashank Kumar Shankar proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Introduce neutron flavor associate, disassociate to OSC https://review.openstack.org/403907
16:46:00 reedip o/
16:51:52 ediardo o/
16:56:10 ankur-gupta-f1 ediardo: whats up!
17:12:43 dtroyer sshank, ankur-gupta-f1: so on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/387611/ it seems like the final thing to sort out is —agent-type
17:13:12 sshank dtroyer, yes.
17:13:54 dtroyer I asked for it to be there because I was worried and thinking ahead to if making the assumption that "network agent add network" can _always_ assume the DHCP agent in the future
17:14:16 dtroyer rather, I wanted it to protect against that assumption changing
17:14:53 sshank dtroyer, yeah right now it seems like only dhcp can be added to network.
17:14:58 dtroyer if that is a safe assumption, let's just remove —agent-type. But we will forever have that assumption of the default type if there ever is a nother one possible in this command
17:15:20 dtroyer can we live with thqat?
17:15:22 dtroyer that?
17:15:37 sshank ankur-gupta-f1, ^^?
17:16:08 sshank dtroyer, he is not at his desk. Lemme ping him
17:16:45 dtroyer I'll leaving a comment in the review to doc this…
17:16:47 ankur-gupta-f1 yea i am fine with removing --agent-type
17:17:07 dtroyer and living with the assumption forever? :)
17:17:55 ankur-gupta-f1 ah theres the catch
17:18:20 dtroyer that's why I have been deliberate on this…
17:18:21 ankur-gupta-f1 I still stick by my original idea of putting the --<agent-binary> flag.
17:18:42 dtroyer what is that again?
17:19:29 ankur-gupta-f1 so in case an agent is created down the road where it can add an agent there must be some way of indicating which of the two types of agents.
17:19:30 dtroyer also, there is the slightly larger pattern for all "network agent add/remove XXXX" commands. If others may need to declare an agent type
17:19:42 dtroyer right, that is what —agent-type is for
17:19:50 dtroyer but unneeded at the moment
17:20:26 ankur-gupta-f1 What I am proposing is instead of --agent-type <agent-name>, just have a single flag --<agent-name>
17:20:53 ankur-gupta-f1 network agent add network --dhcp <agent-id> <network>
17:21:16 dtroyer ok, yeah, that is actaully closer to what we do in a lot of other places.
17:21:31 ankur-gupta-f1 parser then will only have to check which flag is set and then call the appropriate object function
17:21:52 dtroyer sometimes we pick the enumerated options over explicit options when there are either a lot of them, or the list is semi-fluid
17:22:21 dtroyer in the general "network agent add/remove XXX" command case, is this still a safe approach?
17:22:44 reedip hi ankur-gupta-f1
17:22:52 reedip cant we add lbaas as an agent ?
17:23:03 ankur-gupta-f1 yes. many-to-many relationship I think should be the guideline whether to use add/remove and set
17:23:58 dtroyer specifically though WRT —dhcp style options rather than a single generic --agent-type
17:25:21 ankur-gupta-f1 yes
17:25:29 reedip I agree with "network agent add/remove ABC" optio
17:25:44 ankur-gupta-f1 reedip: currently the only lbaasv2 command for the lbaas-agent checks lbaas-agent vs other loadbalancing resources
17:26:15 reedip ankur-gupta-f1 : what I meant was except dhcp , we have other options as wel
17:27:03 ankur-gupta-f1 reedip: explain?
17:27:18 ankur-gupta-f1 there will be a flag for --l3 as well
17:27:56 dtroyer so to restate for clarity: for any "network agent" commands that may need to handle multiple agent types, we will use agent-type-specific options (such as —dhcp and —l3) to identify the agent type rather than a single —agent-type <type> option; also where only a single type can be assumed we will use that assumption as the default.
17:28:17 ankur-gupta-f1 correct
17:28:22 dtroyer \o/
17:28:35 ankur-gupta-f1 adding to both those reviews for reference
17:28:49 sshank so its 'openstack network agent add network --dhcp <agent-id> <network>' correct?
17:29:05 ankur-gupta-f1 yes
17:29:18 dtroyer —dhscp is not required in that command as it is the only agent type to need "add network" is my understanding
17:29:49 dtroyer if we want to allow —dhcp that is fine with me, and is essentially what the current —agent-type option is doing
17:29:51 reedip dtroyer: yes, thats correct
17:29:58 sshank So its 'openstack network agent add network <agent-id> <network>' since dhcp is default?
17:30:05 dtroyer yes
17:30:12 sshank Ok
17:30:16 reedip but cant we have any oher network agent in the future ?
17:30:29 dtroyer we can, but DHCP will be the default forever
17:30:30 ankur-gupta-f1 wait no we just went backwards
17:30:48 dtroyer ??
17:31:25 reedip dtroyer : so you want --dhcp to be the default optional ?
17:32:18 reedip I am not sure about that .... User should know which agent he is working upon. I would suggest an agent type to be specified. It may not be a flag , but an agent name ( like dhcp / l3 ) which can be checked
17:33:17 dtroyer so then the need is to make the rule for how to specify network agent type for all network agent commands
17:33:57 sshank I personally think 'openstack network agent add network --dhcp <agent-id> <network>' would be better. It is explicit and causes no confusion.
17:34:15 reedip sshank : --dhcp => dhcp
17:34:37 reedip does that seem better or equally intriguing to u?
17:34:39 dtroyer no, if it is there it is an option
17:34:43 dtroyer —dhcp
17:34:59 reedip dtroyer ; thats my question, does it have to be an option?
17:35:07 dtroyer otherwise w echange the resource name from "network agent" to "dhcp agent" or omething like that, then deal with the explosion of commands
17:36:08 reedip dtroyer : oh ok, got it. The agent-id will be used with the Optional flag
17:36:19 reedip and that would make our complete agent
17:37:01 dtroyer no, the option is stand-aline
17:37:15 dtroyer agent id is a positional argument

Earlier   Later