Cool. Thx. I just wanted to ensure this was captured.
It can be duped later if it is. 8)

        —Tom

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 6:02 PM, Tal Liron <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Tom. I'm pretty sure there already is just a JIRA... anyway, I
> edited yours just to remove the other things, because DeWayne is reporting
> a different issue here.
> 
> DeWayne, could you you pretty please provide us with something more than
> "blows a gasket"? What happens exactly and when, and could you please try
> to isolate it to a minimal case?
> 
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Nadeau <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>        I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIA-388 to
>> capture this.
>> 
>>        —Tom
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:09 PM, DeWayne Filppi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ok.  The interesting thing is that not only does it allow you to have
>>> ad-hoc inputs, it also blows a gasket when you try to define them.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Tal Liron <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> ARIA right now lets you throw in ad hoc inputs, but I consider this to
>> be a
>>>> bug. So yes, I would say you absolutely need to declare your inputs.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:46 PM, DeWayne Filppi <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> So you'd agree that it should have required an explicit definition of
>> the
>>>>> inputs?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Tal Liron <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any help in debugging would be appreciated!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:02 PM, DeWayne Filppi <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For reasons that somewhat mystify me, the template is installing with
>>>>> no
>>>>>>> errors now.  I fixed it by removing the inputs definition I had in
>>>> the
>>>>>>> terminal.yaml file, which is counter-intuitive.  I used to have, in
>>>> the
>>>>>>> node type definition:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   interfaces:
>>>>>>>     Standard:
>>>>>>>       create:
>>>>>>>         implementation: cloudify-utilities-plugin >
>>>>>>> cloudify_terminal.tasks.run
>>>>>>>         inputs:
>>>>>>>           calls:
>>>>>>>             type: list
>>>>>>>             entry_schema: call_type
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I defined the inputs because I thought I had to.  This was the source
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the error I mentioned in another thread (regarding yaml-1.1).  In any
>>>>>> case,
>>>>>>> by commenting it out, I got no validation errors, and the terminal
>>>>> calls
>>>>>>> are made as expected.  In the node template, I still pass inputs:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     interfaces:
>>>>>>>       Standard:
>>>>>>>         create:
>>>>>>>           inputs:
>>>>>>>             calls:
>>>>>>>               - action: exit
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This doesn't seem as though it should be possible.  In any case, the
>>>>>> latest
>>>>>>> has been pushed to the repo:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/dfilppi/fortigate-tosca-example
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> DeWayne
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:37 AM, DeWayne Filppi <
>>>> [email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For those interested, I'm in the process of implementing a TOSCA
>>>>>> template
>>>>>>>> for the initial deployment and configuration of a Fortigate VNF in
>>>>>>>> Openstack.  It uses a couple of borrowed Cloudify plugins: one for
>>>>>>>> Openstack itself (https://github.com/cloudify-
>>>>>> cosmo/cloudify-openstack-
>>>>>>>> plugin), and one for the terminal plugin (part of the Cloudify
>>>>>> incubator
>>>>>>>> "utilities" project (https://github.com/cloudify-
>>>>>>>> incubator/cloudify-utilities-plugin).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The basic idea is that a network and router is created with public
>>>>>>> access,
>>>>>>>> and a private network with no direct public access.  In between is
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Fortigate firewall VNF that controls access to instances running on
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> private network.  The initial template just sets up the VNF and
>>>>>> networks.
>>>>>>>> The next template (TBD) will deploy a service on the private
>>>> network
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> reconfigure the firewall to allow access via port forwarding.
>>>> This
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> very much a work in progress (the VNF configuration isn't quite
>>>>> working
>>>>>>>> yet):
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/dfilppi/fortigate-tosca-example
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to