| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-05-16 | |||
| 15:57:34 | dhellmann | so a single sphinx project publishing nicely organized content is more appealing | |
| 15:57:44 | dhellmann | edleafe, cdent, dtroyer : ^^ | |
| 15:58:48 | cdent | ideally we'd see more places linking into the guidelines, and that makes even more sense if we're covering both creation and consumption | |
| 16:01:02 | edleafe | cdent: +1 | |
| 16:04:52 | elmiko | mordred: edleafe, just saw the ping. reading back | |
| 16:06:46 | elmiko | mordred: so, i more or less agree with cdent, edleafe and dtroyer. seems more useful to have things in a place that is easier to find | |
| 16:07:22 | elmiko | i'm not sure what shape that would take, but i like the idea of being able to navigate between the different guideline types in a convenient fashion | |
| 16:10:21 | mordred | sweet | |
| 16:11:28 | edleafe | The only one that seems out of place a bit is the version discovery algorithm | |
| 16:11:45 | edleafe | but in the context of the others, it fits | |
| 16:12:00 | mordred | dhellmann: there is also at least one thing in the service-types-authority consumption spec that assumes we can publish the service-types-authority data to a location that will be solid/stable/well-known. It's currently written up as "https://specs.openstack.org/service-types.json" - which I think a job in s-t-a to publish post-merge should be easy enough to implement | |
| 16:13:00 | dhellmann | mordred: it feels a little odd to publish machine-readable data to the root of the specs site, but I think I get it | |
| 16:13:28 | mordred | dhellmann: yah - we could also spin up a new domain/web root for that I imagine too | |
| 16:13:55 | cdent | i think specs could very well be fine: it's sort of like a spec | |
| 16:14:10 | dhellmann | yeah, it's just a new precedent | |
| 16:14:11 | cdent | and helps give it some ooomph | |
| 16:14:31 | mordred | edleafe: maybe if we re-org that doc slightly more cleanly into "develop/deploy/consume" portions rather than "this is all the information you need about consuming versions - oh, also, deployers please take note of this bit" it'll be easier to read too? | |
| 16:19:27 | edleafe | mordred: or maybe "here's where we are", "here's why we are in the state we are", and "here's where we really want to be" | |
| 16:20:21 | mordred | edleafe: yes. "this is the description of the idea state" - "this is description of the complete current state including the ideal state" - "these are recommendations for people who would like to achieve future perfection" | |
| 16:20:41 | mordred | edleafe, cdent, elmiko: WHILE I'VE GOT YOUR ATTENTION ... | |
| 16:23:57 | mordred | most of the services I've found in openstack with microversions implementations use the nova form of version/min_version rather than the API-WG recommendation of max_version/min_version ... including nova, cinder, manila and ironic - although it seems magnum and zun have the min_version/max_version form | |
| 16:24:39 | mordred | I'm mostly curious about the decision to recommend min/max (since I wasn't paying attentoin then) and how much effort we think should go in to adding max_version to the services which just have version? | |
| 16:25:42 | mordred | (I started a patch to add a "collections" link as from the version discovery thing just to see how bad it was (not) which is what got me thinking about this specifically) | |
| 16:25:45 | elmiko | iirc, some of these projects were impementing microversion while we were still arriving at the guideline, that combined with the "nova effect" (copy what nova did) did not help | |
| 16:26:35 | elmiko | it would be cool to bring the project up to speed with the guideline, but i don't have a strong handle on how interested in taking on the tech debt they would be | |
| 16:26:58 | elmiko | we don't get strong participation on a good day, it's just tough to know how the individual projects would feel about it | |
| 16:27:15 | sdague | well nova, ironic, and manila were out the door before there ever was an api-wg recommendation | |
| 16:27:17 | elmiko | my gut feeling is that it will be like herding a small pack of cats | |
| 16:27:20 | mordred | I mean, from a consume perspective, any consumer is going to have to handle both choices no matter what for the forseeable future so it's not a super big deal there | |
| 16:27:26 | elmiko | sdague: exactly | |
| 16:27:28 | mordred | sdague: yah | |
| 16:28:00 | edleafe | does anyone use max_version? | |
| 16:28:04 | mordred | yes | |
| 16:28:12 | elmiko | imo, it would be nice, but we (api-wg) don't exactly have a habit of chasing folks down to implement the guidelines | |
| 16:28:18 | mordred | magnum and zun at least - I haven't taken full catalog yet | |
| 16:28:57 | cdent | I thnk the change probably happeend because there's a conflict between the default version you get if you don't specific and the concept of "version" | |
| 16:28:59 | cdent | I would expect "version" to mean "what i get if I say nothing" | |
| 16:29:02 | mordred | elmiko: :) -- my next couple of months are going to be essentially chasing folks down to let me implement some of the guidelines ... so I'm kind of poking around the edges to figure out how it's gone so far | |
| 16:29:07 | cdent | which would mean min_version | |
| 16:29:15 | elmiko | mordred: ooh! neat =) | |
| 16:29:26 | elmiko | in that case, +1 to adding them | |
| 16:29:26 | mordred | elmiko: wish me luck! | |
| 16:29:41 | cdent | so by being explicit about max, min, we avoid the confusion | |
| 16:29:53 | edleafe | hmmm... maybe add a note to the microversion guideline about the existing services that don't follow | |
| 16:30:06 | mordred | edleafe: I can do that in one of my next passes through the stack | |
| 16:30:44 | edleafe | yeah, I mean, I know nova will never change this, so we should at least acknowledge reality | |
| 16:30:54 | elmiko | edleafe: good point | |
| 16:31:04 | cdent | we did manage to add support for openstack-api-version: compute x.y | |
| 16:31:17 | cdent | so we may not ever remove the old way, but we can add the new way | |
| 16:31:53 | edleafe | cdent: true, so maybe there's hope :) | |
| 16:36:16 | elmiko | bbl | |
| 16:53:22 | mordred | mugsie, sdague: the sub-elements patch has examples published herE: http://docs-draft.openstack.org/55/464255/5/check/gate-nova-api-ref-src/f02b170//api-ref/build/html/ - versions and list-sever-details are both good examples to look at for output | |
| 16:53:52 | mordred | I don't feel super strongly about this at all - it was more a thing I've hit up against before reading the docs so I thought I'd take a random stab at it | |
| 16:57:19 | sdague | mordred: ok looking | |
| 16:57:36 | sdague | mordred: have we gotten a read from horizon folks as to if they like this approach? | |
| 16:58:53 | sdague | I think it has definite advantages, we probably need a good glossary explaining how to read it (maybe if we had a footnote added to the bottom of every table automatically) | |
| 16:58:58 | mordred | sdague: I have not poked any of them but I can - what's the specific tie to horizon? (I may be missing context) | |
| 16:59:12 | sdague | just, they are folks that tend to read our api-ref | |
| 16:59:22 | sdague | honestly, I just want other readers | |
| 16:59:28 | mordred | ah- gotcha. yes- they would be great additional inputs | |
| 16:59:39 | mugsie | I agree with the problem statement - I am just not sold on the format | |
| 16:59:41 | mugsie | but | |
| 16:59:45 | mugsie | we could iterate that | |
| 16:59:48 | sdague | because I'm so steeped in this that I don't trust my judgement on better/worse | |
| 17:00:40 | sdague | if we had a couple of common consumers say "yes please", I'd be all for a "you betcha" | |
| 17:01:12 | mugsie | mordred: where did the '[]' come from - for me that looks a bit wierd | |
| 17:01:13 | mordred | I also am not sold on the format either- so feedback/suggestions from folks would be great | |
| 17:01:33 | mordred | mugsie: servers is an array - so servers.name looked weird to me | |
| 17:01:41 | sdague | mugsie: it is to distinguish array vs. object attr | |
| 17:01:45 | sdague | which makes sense | |
| 17:01:56 | mordred | yah. I also _think_ I got the idea from the GCE docs - but I might e lying about that | |
| 17:02:11 | sdague | so, because json requires a top level key, I do wonder if we can shorthand past the first key | |
| 17:02:30 | mordred | but it doesn't | |
| 17:02:41 | mordred | we actually do have APIs in openstack that do not return top level keys | |
| 17:02:50 | sdague | ... o really.... | |
| 17:02:51 | sdague | where? | |
| 17:03:11 | mordred | yup. glance single version image discovery springs immediately to mind- but there are others - I could go look | |
| 17:03:29 | mordred | gah | |
| 17:03:35 | mordred | s/image discovery/version discovery/ | |
| 17:04:33 | mordred | also I believe swift capabilities | |
| 17:16:26 | openstackgerrit | caoyuan proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Correct the "extra spec" command openstack https://review.openstack.org/465122 | |
| 17:21:46 | openstackgerrit | Samuel de Medeiros Queiroz proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: Allow setting EndpointReference in ADFSPassword https://review.openstack.org/463432 | |
| 19:58:00 | chit | Hi, could anybody give me a high-level overview of the openstackclient code base? As in, where the control flow starts, and what calls what first and when. Thanks :) | |
| 19:59:36 | dtroyer | chit: the basic structure is defined by cliff, the library that provides the app and command objects in use: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/cliff | |
| 20:00:14 | dtroyer | you will need python-openstackclient and osc-lib source to walk through the shell and ClientManager objects that do all of the cenral coordination | |
| 20:00:29 | dtroyer | specific commands are dispatched via setuptools' entry points | |
| 20:09:25 | chit | So when the client performs something like a "openstack server list", would the constructors defined in the cliff library get called? Would the App and Command objects get created from there? | |
| 20:13:38 | dtroyer | chit: yes they do | |
| 20:13:58 | dtroyer | command-wise, though, only for the command(s) being executed | |
| 20:14:40 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/keystoneauth master: Allow setting EndpointReference in ADFSPassword https://review.openstack.org/463432 | |
| 23:14:30 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/os-client-config master: Keep a singleton to support multiple get_config calls https://review.openstack.org/465195 | |
| 23:33:14 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/keystoneauth master: Add ADFSPassword to keystoneauth1 entry points https://review.openstack.org/463234 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-05-17 | |||
| 00:26:22 | openstackgerrit | Akihiro Motoki proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Convert image functional tests into JSON format https://review.openstack.org/465203 | |
| 01:28:37 | openstackgerrit | Akihiro Motoki proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Convert image functional tests into JSON format https://review.openstack.org/465203 | |
| 01:30:45 | openstackgerrit | Akihiro Motoki proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Convert volume type functional tests into JSON format https://review.openstack.org/465208 | |
| 01:42:12 | openstackgerrit | Rui Chen proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Make block-device-mapping more stable and clear https://review.openstack.org/438141 | |
| 01:44:29 | openstackgerrit | Rui Chen proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: [Compute]Make column content readable for both human and machine https://review.openstack.org/445794 | |
| 01:51:10 | openstackgerrit | Akihiro Motoki proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Convert volume functional tests into JSON format https://review.openstack.org/465208 | |
| 01:51:40 | openstackgerrit | Rui Chen proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Create server with security group ID and name https://review.openstack.org/462076 | |
| 01:52:05 | openstackgerrit | Akihiro Motoki proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Convert image functional tests into JSON format https://review.openstack.org/465203 | |