Alena, Didn't you say that you guys already "did logic review" in the previous email?
Thanks Alex Ough On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > Alex, sorry to hear that it took so long to get on the review process. > The question still remains – before you started working on implementation, > and posted your plugin’s code, was the FS approved/reviewed as a part of > [PROPOSAL] discussion? We should never start the development until you get > the input from the community on the FS and confirm that the design is valid > and the feature can contribute to CS. Only after the proposal is accepted, > you can request the Reviewboard ticket review. So I did assume that the > [PROPOSAL] phase was finished, and the FS was validated as a part of it, > when I was asked by Daan to review the Reviewboard ticket. > > I’ve also looked at the history. I can see that Chiradeep contributed to > the design/plugin logic discussion as well as pointed to the changes that > need to be done to the code structure. I helped to review the second. > > Lets wait for the update from Kishan. Kishan, in addition to answering > Alex’s questions, please go over the plugin design once again. > > Thank you, > Alena. > > From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> > Date: Thursday, June 26, 2014 at 11:32 AM > > To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> > Cc: Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" > <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Murali Reddy <murali.re...@citrix.com>, Ram > Ganesh <ram.gan...@citrix.com>, Animesh Chaturvedi < > animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> > Subject: Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among > Multiple Regions (Core Changes) > > Alena, > > It has been reduced almost twice because a lot has been separated from > the CS and moved to the plug-in not because they are 'unnecessary'. Please > remember that my initial implementation was inside the CS not as a plug-in > as I said in the previous email. > > Of course, I asked and urged the review repeatedly and you'll see the > all the histories of them if you find emails using this subject, which > started 10/17/13. > [DISCUSS] Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among Multiple Regions > Even if I asked so many times, unfortunately, I couldn't get an actual > feedback until Daan finally asked Chiradeep and you to review them, which > is 3/10/14. > > Kishan, > I posted 2 questions, so please guide me for the questions. > > Thanks > Alex Ough > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < > alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> Alex, >> >> By “huge” I’ve meant that there was a lot of repetitive hardcoded >> things, lot of unnecessary changes to the CS orchestration layer. If you >> compare a number of changes now and originally, you can see that it reduced >> almost twice. >> >> But lets discuss the complains about lack of initial review as its more >> important question. >> >> Review of the design spec should happen before you start >> designing/coding. As I jumped on review much later, after you’ve submitted >> the entire plugin code, so I I didn’t participate in “Feature Request” >> discussion review that might have happened earlier. And I do assume that >> the reviews/emails exchanges were done at that initial phase? You should >> have contacted the people participating in the initial phase, and ask them >> for the review as well. >> >> As a part of my review, I’ve made sure to cover the things I’m certain >> should have been changed. I’ve reviewed the feature logic as well, >> consulting the FS you’ve written. I’m not saying that there is anything >> wrong with your initial design, but asking for a second opinion from the >> guys who have more expertise in Regions. >> >> Kishan, please help to do the final review the Alex’s plugin design >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/17790 >> >> Thank you, >> Alena. >> From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 9:03 PM >> >> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >> Cc: Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" >> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Murali Reddy <murali.re...@citrix.com>, Ram >> Ganesh <ram.gan...@citrix.com>, Animesh Chaturvedi < >> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> >> Subject: Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among >> Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >> >> Alena, >> >> I understand that you have been helping a lot to make my codes to match >> the coding standards, but I'm not sure what you mean by "the code base was >> unnecessary huge". >> The initial implementation was to support the synchronization inside the >> CS because this feature is missing in the current multiple region support, >> and most of jobs were to separate the implementation from the CS because >> you guys wanted me to provide it as a plugin. >> >> And I kept asking reviews for the design spec from when I published the >> documents with initial prototype, it took a while for you to start to >> review my implementation and they have been mostly about the coding >> standards instead of the logic itself. So I'm saying that it would have >> been better if there has been someone to review the design spec and the >> prototype from the initial phase. >> >> Again, I really appreciate your help to come this far, but it was also >> very painful for me. >> Thanks >> Alex Ough >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> Alex, >>> >>> In the beginning the code was not very well organazied, didn't match >>> coding standarts (no use of spring, misleading names, not segregated to its >>> own plugin), and the code base was unneccessary huge. >>> All of the above it very hard to review and understand the code logic >>> from the beginning and engage more people to the review. Therefore >>> Chiradeep pointed it in his original review that the code needs to match CS >>> standarts first, and be better organized. I helped to review the fixes, and >>> did logic review as well after the code came into “reviewable” shape. >>> >>> I'm asking Kishan/Murali to look at it to see if anything is missing >>> or incorrect in the final review, not to make you override or change >>> everything you've already put in. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Alena. >>> >>> From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 7:12 PM >>> >>> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>> Cc: Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" >>> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Murali Reddy <murali.re...@citrix.com>, >>> Ram Ganesh <ram.gan...@citrix.com>, Animesh Chaturvedi < >>> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> >>> Subject: Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among >>> Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>> >>> Alena, >>> >>> Don't get me wrong. What I'm saying is that it would have been better >>> if you asked the review to whomever you thought was important when you >>> started the review. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Alex Ough >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Alex, >>>> >>>> I did my best to review the code, made sure it came in shape with the >>>> CS guidelines and java code style There was no way to anticipate all the >>>> things to fix originally, as every subsequent review update added more >>>> things to fix as the review code was new/refactored. >>>> >>>> And I don’t see anything wrong about asking for a FINAL opinion from >>>> other people on the mailing list, considering some of them participated in >>>> the review process along the way already (Kishan). Anybody can review the >>>> review ticket till its closed, and point to the items that other reviewers >>>> might have missed. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Alena. >>>> >>>> From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 6:33 PM >>>> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>> Cc: Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, " >>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Murali Reddy < >>>> murali.re...@citrix.com>, Ram Ganesh <ram.gan...@citrix.com>, Animesh >>>> Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among >>>> Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>> >>>> Thanks Alena, and I'm glad if they spend time for the review, but >>>> could it be a little earlier for you to ask them to review instead of at >>>> the last moment? >>>> I'm really exhausted with repeatedly added items whenever I post a >>>> review. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Alex Ough >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Alex, looks fine to me. Make sure that you put the regionId >>>>> validation as our in-built API validation won’t work in this case because >>>>> there is no UUID field support for the Region object. You can check how >>>>> validation is begin done in updateRegion/deleteRegion scenarios. >>>>> >>>>> Kishan/Murali, can you please spend some time doing the final review >>>>> for Alex’s tickets? As you are the original developers for Region, and >>>>> probably have the most expertise on the topic. I don’t want to commit the >>>>> fixes before I hear “ship it” from both of you, guys. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Alena. >>>>> From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM >>>>> To: Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com> >>>>> Cc: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>, " >>>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Murali Reddy < >>>>> murali.re...@citrix.com>, Ram Ganesh <ram.gan...@citrix.com>, Animesh >>>>> Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among >>>>> Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alena, >>>>> >>>>> Can you confirm if this fix is correct? >>>>> >>>>> @Parameter(name = ApiConstants.ORIGINATED_REGION_ID, type = >>>>> CommandType.INTEGER, description = "Region where this account is >>>>> created.", >>>>> since = "4.5") >>>>> private Integer originatedRegionId; >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Alex Ough >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Kishan Kavala < >>>>> kishan.kav...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>> You can refer to the code from initDataSource method in >>>>>> Transaction.java. >>>>>> >>>>>> Properties file can be loaded using the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *File dbPropsFile = PropertiesUtil.findConfigFile(propsFileName);* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Alex Ough [mailto:alex.o...@sungardas.com] >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 June 2014 4:31 PM >>>>>> *To:* Kishan Kavala >>>>>> *Cc:* Alena Prokharchyk; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Murali Reddy; >>>>>> Ram Ganesh; Animesh Chaturvedi >>>>>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Kishan, but there seems to be lots of 'db.properties' files, >>>>>> so which one should be referenced? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Kishan Kavala < >>>>>> kishan.kav...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>> As Alena mentioned, it is admin’s responsibility to keep ids same >>>>>> across Regions. Ids should be used as unique identifier. Region name is >>>>>> merely descriptive name and its mostly associated with geographic >>>>>> location. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also note that region name can be updated anytime using updateRegion >>>>>> API. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlike, other internal Ids in CS, region Ids are assigned by admin. >>>>>> So exposing region Id to admin should not be an issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Id of the local region cannot be guaranteed to be “1” always. Region >>>>>> Id has to be unique across all regions. While creating new region admin >>>>>> will provide unique region id to *cloud-setup-databases* script. Id >>>>>> of the local region is stored in db.properties. To identify a Local >>>>>> region >>>>>> you can use one of the following options: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Look up region.id in db.properties >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Add a new column in region table >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Alex Ough [mailto:alex.o...@sungardas.com] >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 June 2014 8:18 AM >>>>>> *To:* Alena Prokharchyk >>>>>> *Cc:* dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Kishan Kavala; Murali Reddy; Ram >>>>>> Ganesh; Animesh Chaturvedi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There is one thing that was not mentioned, which is that currently >>>>>> the id of 'Local' region is always 1 and if we do not guarantee that, >>>>>> there >>>>>> is no way to find out which is the local region unless we add one more >>>>>> field to tells which is the local region. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm wondering if we have a solution for this now. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with that the ids are unique identifier, but they are usually >>>>>> internal purpose not exposed to the users. So it is a little strange to >>>>>> ask >>>>>> users to assign ids when they add new regions. And if we do not allow >>>>>> duplicated names, I'm not sure why it is not good to use names as a >>>>>> unique >>>>>> identifier. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's been a long way to come this far with several reasons, so I >>>>>> really want to wrap this up as soon as possible, and this doesn't seem to >>>>>> be a major obstacle, so let me just use 'id' as a parameter if there is >>>>>> no >>>>>> one with a different thought until tomorrow morning. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex, id is used as a unique identifier for CS objects. And it is the >>>>>> CS requirement to refer to the object by id if the id is present. Look at >>>>>> all the other APIs. We nowhere refer to the network/vpc/vm by name just >>>>>> because its more human readable. The id is used by Api layer when >>>>>> parameter >>>>>> validation is done, by lots of Dao methods (findById is one of them), >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> Even look at updateRegion/deleteRegion – we don’t refer to them by name, >>>>>> but by the id. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason why Kishan added the support for controlling the id by >>>>>> adding it to the createRegion call (and making it unique) is exactly >>>>>> that – >>>>>> region administrator can decide what id to set on the region, and to >>>>>> introduce the region with the same id to the other regions’ db. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So I would still suggest on using the id of the region in the API >>>>>> calls you are modifying. Unless developers who worked on regions feature >>>>>> – >>>>>> Kishan/Murali – come up with the valid objection. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Alena. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 5:41 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>>> *Cc: *"dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, >>>>>> Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy < >>>>>> murali.re...@citrix.com>, Ram Ganesh <ram.gan...@citrix.com>, >>>>>> Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We can use the same ids & names, but we don't have to use the same >>>>>> ids if we use names, which is a little easier because names are user >>>>>> readable but ids are not, so we don't need to memorize/check all the ids >>>>>> when we add new regions in multiple regions, which can be confusing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Aren’t we supposed to sync the regions across the multiple regions >>>>>> Dbs? Because that’s what region FS states: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/AWS-Style+Regions+Functional+Spec, >>>>>> “Adding 2nd region” paragraph, bullet #4: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Install a 2nd CS instance. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. While installing database set region_id using -r option in >>>>>> cloud-setup-databases script (Make sure *database_key* is same >>>>>> across all regions). >>>>>> >>>>>> *cloud-setup-databases cloud:**<**dbpassword**>**@localhost >>>>>> --deploy-as=root:**<**password**>** -e **<**encryption_type**>** -m * >>>>>> *<**management_server_key**>** -k **<**database_key**> -r >>>>>> <region_id>* >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Start mgmt server >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. *Using addRegion API, add region 1 to region 2 and also region 2 >>>>>> to region 1.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I assume that we expect the admin to add the region with the same >>>>>> name and the same id to ALL regions Dbs (both id and name should be >>>>>> passed >>>>>> to createRegion call). So they are all in sync. Isn’t it the requirement? >>>>>> If so, we should rely on the fact that all regions Dbs will have the same >>>>>> set of regions having the same ids and names cross regions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Alena. >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM >>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>>> *Cc: *"dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, >>>>>> Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy < >>>>>> murali.re...@citrix.com>, Ram Ganesh <ram.gan...@citrix.com>, >>>>>> Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What I'm trying to say is that when we pass the ids of regions, the >>>>>> receivers do not know what the originated region is and the id of each >>>>>> region is not same across all the regions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex, thank you for summarizing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I still don’t see why id can’t be unique across regions as you can >>>>>> control the id assignment – id is required when createRegion call is >>>>>> made. >>>>>> And that’s how the region should be represented in other region’s Dbs – >>>>>> by >>>>>> its id that is unique across the regions. Kishan/Murali, please confirm. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Alena. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 4:22 PM >>>>>> *To: *"dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>>>>> *Cc: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>, Kishan >>>>>> Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy < >>>>>> murali.re...@citrix.com>, Ram Ganesh <ram.gan...@citrix.com>, >>>>>> Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There is one open question in this topic, which is to figure out >>>>>> which value is appropriate to pass the region object, id or name? >>>>>> >>>>>> During this implementation, we decided to add the information of >>>>>> regions where user/account/domain objects have been originally >>>>>> created/modified/removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the ids of regions are not same across the regions and currently >>>>>> the regions do not have uuids(they will not be same either if we add them >>>>>> to regions), so I'd like to use names. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me know what you think. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi < >>>>>> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Let’s have the discussion on dev mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Animesh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Alena Prokharchyk >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:06 PM >>>>>> *To:* Alex Ough; Kishan Kavala; Murali Reddy >>>>>> *Cc:* Animesh Chaturvedi; Ram Ganesh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Adding Kishan to the thread as he was the one who implemented the >>>>>> region feature originally. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kishan, in a situation when there are 2 regions in the system, we >>>>>> expect “region” table to be populated with the same id/name in both Dbs >>>>>> for >>>>>> both regions, right? So my question is – what uniquely identifies the >>>>>> region in CS system in cross region setup – id/name? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That unique identifier should be the value that is passed to the >>>>>> calls you modify, Alex. WE can’t just pass some random name to the call >>>>>> without making any further verification. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kishan/Murali, please help to verify this part of Alex’s fix as it >>>>>> should really be someone with an expertise in Regions. I’ve reviewed the >>>>>> rest of the feature, just this one item is open. See my latest comment to >>>>>> the https://reviews.apache.org/r/17790/diff/?page=1#0 as well as >>>>>> refer to this email thread for the context. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Alena. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 2:54 PM >>>>>> *To: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That what would everybody assume 100% just by looking at the >>>>>> parameter description and parameter – that you refer to region UUID : >>>>>> "Region where this account is created.”/ORIGINATEDREGIONUUID >>>>>> >>>>>> In CS the UUID has a special meaning. It has to have the UUID format, >>>>>> and its randomly generated value that is stored in the DB along with the >>>>>> actual db id. I can see that regionVO lacks UUID field. Looks like >>>>>> existing >>>>>> RegionVO object lacks this filed unlike other CS objects (uservm, etc). I >>>>>> will follow up with Murali on that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex, so originatedRegionUUID refers to the region name, correct?. >>>>>> Why don’t use the region id instead? That’s what we do when refer to CS >>>>>> objects – we always refer to them by id which is unique. Which is true >>>>>> even >>>>>> for the region: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> mysql> show create table region; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> UNIQUE KEY `id` (`id`), >>>>>> >>>>>> UNIQUE KEY `name` (`name`) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That’s what you do when you manipulate the region itself >>>>>> (delete/updateRegion) - refer to the region by its id. And this field is >>>>>> returned to you when you call listRegions API: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://localhost:8096/?command=listRegions >>>>>> >>>>>> <region> >>>>>> >>>>>> <id>1</id> >>>>>> >>>>>> <name>Local</name> >>>>>> >>>>>> <endpoint>http://localhost:8080/client/</endpoint> >>>>>> >>>>>> <gslbserviceenabled>true</gslbserviceenabled> >>>>>> >>>>>> <portableipserviceenabled>false</portableipserviceenabled> >>>>>> >>>>>> </region> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please correct if I miss something. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Alena. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM >>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the clarification, but here is a thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm passing names as the values of originatedRegionUuids because the >>>>>> uuids are randomly generated and the same regions do NOT have the same >>>>>> uuidss. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I'd like to change the parameter types into String. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me know if you think otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> take a look at ParamProcessWorker class, and how API parameters are >>>>>> being dispatched/verified. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) public void processParameters(final BaseCmd cmd, final Map >>>>>> params) method >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> First of all, EntityType parameter should be defined in the >>>>>> @Parameter annotation for the originatedRegionID field. This parameter is >>>>>> used by paramProcessWorker to make "if entity exists" validation >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Check another method in the same class: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> private void setFieldValue(final Field field, final BaseCmd cmdObj, >>>>>> final Object paramObj, final Parameter annotation) throws >>>>>> IllegalArgumentException, ParseException { >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thats the method responsible for dispatching/setting the field >>>>>> values. Here is the snippet of the code for the case when UUID is >>>>>> defined: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> case UUID: >>>>>> >>>>>> if (paramObj.toString().isEmpty()) >>>>>> >>>>>> break; >>>>>> >>>>>> final Long internalId = >>>>>> translateUuidToInternalId(paramObj.toString(), annotation); >>>>>> >>>>>> field.set(cmdObj, internalId); >>>>>> >>>>>> break; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> it always transforms the UUID to Long id, not string. And at the end, >>>>>> it will be internal DB UUID, not the UUID. If you need the UUID, you have >>>>>> to get it by a) retrieving the object from the DB by id b) Getting its >>>>>> UUID >>>>>> property. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you leave it as a String, you will hit IllegalArgumentException at >>>>>> "field.set(cmdObj, internalId);" line. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hope it answers your questions, and let me know if anything else >>>>>> needs to be clarified. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -alena. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 1:57 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you want to change UUID to 'Long'? >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you just correct what I fixed? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> You need to put: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * the entityType parameter to the annotation. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Change the type to Long as I’ve already mentioned. Check how >>>>>> other commands handle the parameters (networkId, vpcId, etc) >>>>>> >>>>>> —Alena. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up >>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Will this change work? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> @Parameter(name = ApiConstants.ORIGINATED_REGION_ID, type = >>>>>> CommandType.UUID, description = "Region UUID where this account is >>>>>> created.", since = "4.5") >>>>>> >>>>>> private String originatedRegionUUID; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alena, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is what really frustrates me, but can you give the final items >>>>>> instead of keeping adding more items whenever I post a review, please? >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you gurantee that this is the only item you want me to fix? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex, as a part of the fix, also change the param name to be regionId >>>>>> (there should be a value in apiconstants already) as the parameter really >>>>>> reflects CS region object, and we usually refer to those as networkID, >>>>>> vpcID (not uuid) although uuid are passed in. Check if the rest of the >>>>>> api >>>>>> changes you've done, respect this rule. Sorry, out of the office now and >>>>>> cant check myself if there are any. >>>>>> >>>>>> -alena >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:12 AM, "Alena Prokharchyk" < >>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >>>>>> >>>>>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/20099/#review46557 >>>>>> > ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Alex, one small thing. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Just noticed that in the API commands you pass regionUUID as a >>>>>> string. You should pass it as a type of UUID and specify the entityType >>>>>> parameter in @Parameter so the entity validation is done correctly. >>>>>> Example: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > @Parameter(name=ApiConstants.ZONE_ID, type=CommandType.UUID, >>>>>> entityType = ZoneResponse.class, >>>>>> > required=true, description="the Zone ID for the network") >>>>>> > private Long zoneId; >>>>>> > >>>>>> > That is the rule when passing id/uuid of the first class CS object >>>>>> to the API call >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Then be aware of the fact that the APIDispatcher will transform >>>>>> UUID to the actual DB id, and that would be the Id that you pass to the >>>>>> services call. If what you need is UUID, not the actual id, to be saved >>>>>> in >>>>>> the callContext, you have to transform it explicitly. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > - Alena Prokharchyk >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >> On June 24, 2014, 3:54 p.m., Alex Ough wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >>>>>> >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20099/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> (Updated June 24, 2014, 3:54 p.m.) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Review request for cloudstack. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Repository: cloudstack-git >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Description >>>>>> >> ------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> This is the review request for the core changes related with >>>>>> #17790 that has only the new plugin codes. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> Diffs >>>>>> >> ----- >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> api/src/com/cloud/event/EventTypes.java 0fa3cd5 >>>>>> >>>>>> >> api/src/com/cloud/user/AccountService.java eac8a76 >>>>>> >> api/src/com/cloud/user/DomainService.java 4c1f93d >>>>>> >> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/ApiConstants.java adda5f4 >>>>>> >> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/BaseCmd.java ac9a208 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/CreateAccountCmd.java >>>>>> 50d67d9 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/DeleteAccountCmd.java >>>>>> 5754ec5 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/DisableAccountCmd.java >>>>>> 3e5e1d3 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/EnableAccountCmd.java >>>>>> f30c985 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/LockAccountCmd.java >>>>>> 3c185e4 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/UpdateAccountCmd.java >>>>>> a7ce74a >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/domain/CreateDomainCmd.java >>>>>> 312c9ee >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/domain/DeleteDomainCmd.java >>>>>> a6d2b0b >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/domain/UpdateDomainCmd.java >>>>>> 409a84d >>>>>> >> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/region/AddRegionCmd.java >>>>>> f6743ba >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/region/UpdateRegionCmd.java >>>>>> b08cbbb >>>>>> >> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/CreateUserCmd.java >>>>>> 8f223ac >>>>>> >> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/DeleteUserCmd.java >>>>>> 08ba521 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/DisableUserCmd.java >>>>>> c6e09ef >>>>>> >> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/EnableUserCmd.java >>>>>> d69eccf >>>>>> >> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/LockUserCmd.java >>>>>> 69623d0 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/RegisterCmd.java >>>>>> 2090d21 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/UpdateUserCmd.java >>>>>> f21e264 >>>>>> >> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/response/RegionResponse.java >>>>>> 6c74fa6 >>>>>> >> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/Region.java df64e44 >>>>>> >> api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionService.java afefcc7 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> api/test/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/test/RegionCmdTest.java >>>>>> 10c3d85 >>>>>> >> client/pom.xml 29fef4f >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> engine/schema/resources/META-INF/cloudstack/core/spring-engine-schema-core-daos-context.xml >>>>>> 2ef0d20 >>>>>> >> engine/schema/src/com/cloud/user/AccountVO.java 0f5a044 >>>>>> >> engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionVO.java >>>>>> 608bd2b >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> plugins/network-elements/juniper-contrail/test/org/apache/cloudstack/network/contrail/management/MockAccountManager.java >>>>>> 4136b5c >>>>>> >> plugins/pom.xml b5e6a61 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> plugins/user-authenticators/ldap/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/LdapCreateAccountCmd.java >>>>>> b753952 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> plugins/user-authenticators/ldap/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/LdapImportUsersCmd.java >>>>>> 6f7be90 >>>>>> >>>>>> >> server/src/com/cloud/api/ApiResponseHelper.java f1f0d2c >>>>>> >> server/src/com/cloud/api/dispatch/ParamProcessWorker.java 1592b93 >>>>>> >> server/src/com/cloud/event/ActionEventUtils.java 2b3cfea >>>>>> >> server/src/com/cloud/projects/ProjectManagerImpl.java d10c059 >>>>>> >> server/src/com/cloud/user/AccountManager.java 194c5d2 >>>>>> >> server/src/com/cloud/user/AccountManagerImpl.java 7a889f1 >>>>>> >> server/src/com/cloud/user/DomainManager.java f72b18a >>>>>> >> server/src/com/cloud/user/DomainManagerImpl.java fbbe0c2 >>>>>> >> server/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionManager.java 6f25481 >>>>>> >> server/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionManagerImpl.java >>>>>> 8910714 >>>>>> >> server/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionServiceImpl.java >>>>>> 98cf500 >>>>>> >> server/test/com/cloud/user/AccountManagerImplTest.java 176cf1d >>>>>> >> server/test/com/cloud/user/MockAccountManagerImpl.java 746fa1b >>>>>> >> server/test/com/cloud/user/MockDomainManagerImpl.java 7dddefb >>>>>> >> server/test/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionManagerTest.java >>>>>> d7bc537 >>>>>> >> setup/db/db/schema-440to450.sql ee419a2 >>>>>> >> ui/scripts/regions.js 368c1bf >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20099/diff/ >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Testing >>>>>> >> ------- >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> 1. Successfully tested real time synchronization as soon as >>>>>> resources are created/deleted/modified in one region. >>>>>> >> 2. Successfully tested full scans to synchronize resources that >>>>>> were missed during real time synchronization because of any reasons like >>>>>> network connection issues. >>>>>> >> 3. The tests were done manually and also automatically by randomly >>>>>> generating changes each region. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> Thanks, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Alex Ough >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
