On 3/11/2014 5:11 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Matt Riedemann
<mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
There was a bug reported today [1] that looks like a regression in this
new code, so we need people involved in this looking at it as soon as
possible because we have a proposed revert in case we need to yank it
out [2].
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1291014
[2]
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bug/1291014,n,z
Note that I have identified the source of the problem and am pushing a
patch shortly with unit tests.
My concern is how much else where assumes nova is working with the glance v2
API because there was a nova blueprint [1] to make nova work with the glance
V2 API but that never landed in Icehouse, so I'm worried about wack-a-mole
type problems here, especially since there is no tempest coverage for
testing multiple image location support via nova.
[1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/use-glance-v2-api
As I mentioned in the bug comments, the code that made the assumption
about glance v2 API actually landed in September 2012:
https://review.openstack.org/13017
The multiple image location patch simply made use of a method that was
already there for more than a year.
-DmitryB
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Yeah, I pointed that out today in IRC also.
So kudos to Jay for getting a patch up quickly, and a really nice one at
that with extensive test coverage.
What I'd like to see in Juno is a tempest test that covers the multiple
image locations code since it seems we obviously don't have that today.
How hard is something like that with an API test?
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
