---- On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 03:54:01 +0900 Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@gmail.com> wrote ---- > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:03 PM Harry Rybacki <hryba...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:57 PM Morgan Fainberg > <morgan.fainb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Ideally I would like to see it in the form of least specific to most > specific. But more importantly in a way that there is no additional > delimiters between the service type and the resource. Finally, I do not like > the change of plurality depending on action type. > > > > I propose we consider > > > > <service-type>:<resource>:<action>[:<subaction>] > > > > Example for keystone (note, action names below are strictly examples I am > fine with whatever form those actions take): > > identity:projects:create > > identity:projects:delete > > identity:projects:list > > identity:projects:get > > > > It keeps things simple and consistent when you're looking through > overrides / defaults. > > --Morgan > +1 -- I think the ordering if `resource` comes before > `action|subaction` will be more clean. > > ++ > These are excellent points. I especially like being able to omit the > convention about plurality. Furthermore, I'd like to add that I think we > should make the resource singular (e.g., project instead or projects). For > example: > compute:server:list > compute:server:updatecompute:server:createcompute:server:deletecompute:server:action:rebootcompute:server:action:confirm_resize > (or confirm-resize)
Do we need "action" word there? I think action name itself should convey the operation. IMO below notation without "äction" word looks clear enough. what you say? compute:server:reboot compute:server:confirm_resize -gmann > > Otherwise, someone might mistake compute:servers:get, as "list". This is > ultra-nick-picky, but something I thought of when seeing the usage of > "get_all" in policy names in favor of "list." > In summary, the new convention based on the most recent feedback should be: > <service-type>:<resource>:<action>[:<subaction>] > Rules:service-type is always defined in the service types authority > resources are always singular > Thanks to all for sticking through this tedious discussion. I appreciate it. > > /R > > Harry > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 6:49 AM Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Bumping this thread again and proposing two conventions based on the > discussion here. I propose we decide on one of the two following conventions: > >> > >> <service-type>:<action>:<resource> > >> > >> or > >> > >> <service-type>:<action>_<resource> > >> > >> Where <service-type> is the corresponding service type of the project > [0], and <action> is either create, get, list, update, or delete. I think > decoupling the method from the policy name should aid in consistency, > regardless of the underlying implementation. The HTTP method specifics can > still be relayed using oslo.policy's DocumentedRuleDefault object [1]. > >> > >> I think the plurality of the resource should default to what makes sense > for the operation being carried out (e.g., list:foobars, create:foobar). > >> > >> I don't mind the first one because it's clear about what the delimiter > is and it doesn't look weird when projects have something like: > >> > >> <service-type>:<action>:<subaction>:<resource> > >> > >> If folks are ok with this, I can start working on some documentation > that explains the motivation for this. Afterward, we can figure out how we > want to track this work. > >> > >> What color do you want the shed to be? > >> > >> [0] https://service-types.openstack.org/service-types.json > >> [1] > https://docs.openstack.org/oslo.policy/latest/reference/api/oslo_policy.policy.html#default-rule > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 9:13 AM Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 2:10 AM Ghanshyam Mann > <gm...@ghanshyammann.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> ---- On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 18:43:00 +0900 John Garbutt > <j...@johngarbutt.com> wrote ---- > >>>> > tl;dr+1 consistent names > >>>> > I would make the names mirror the API... because the Operator > setting them knows the API, not the codeIgnore the crazy names in Nova, I > certainly hate them > >>>> > >>>> Big +1 on consistent naming which will help operator as well as > developer to maintain those. > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > > I'm curious if anyone has context on the "os-" part of the format? > >>>> > > >>>> > My memory of the Nova policy mess...* Nova's policy rules > traditionally followed the patterns of the code > >>>> > ** Yes, horrible, but it happened.* The code used to have the > OpenStack API and the EC2 API, hence the "os"* API used to expand with > extensions, so the policy name is often based on extensions** note most of > the extension code has now gone, including lots of related policies* Policy > in code was focused on getting us to a place where we could rename policy** > Whoop whoop by the way, it feels like we are really close to something > sensible now! > >>>> > Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > Thoughts on using create, list, update, and delete as opposed to > post, get, put, patch, and delete in the naming convention? > >>>> > I could go either way as I think about "list servers" in the > API.But my preference is for the URL stub and POST, GET, etc. > >>>> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 9:47 PM Lance Bragstad > <lbrags...@gmail.com> wrote:If we consider dropping "os", should we > entertain dropping "api", too? Do we have a good reason to keep "api"?I > wouldn't be opposed to simple service types (e.g "compute" or > "loadbalancer"). > >>>> > +1The API is known as "compute" in api-ref, so the policy should be > for "compute", etc. > >>>> > >>>> Agree on mapping the policy name with api-ref as much as possible. > Other than policy name having 'os-', we have 'os-' in resource name also in > nova API url like /os-agents, /os-aggregates etc (almost every resource > except servers , flavors). As we cannot get rid of those from API url, we > need to keep the same in policy naming too? or we can have policy name like > compute:agents:create/post but that mismatch from api-ref where agents > resource url is os-agents. > >>> > >>> > >>> Good question. I think this depends on how the service does policy > enforcement. > >>> > >>> I know we did something like this in keystone, which required policy > names and method names to be the same: > >>> > >>> "identity:list_users": "..." > >>> > >>> Because the initial implementation of policy enforcement used a > decorator like this: > >>> > >>> from keystone import controller > >>> > >>> @controller.protected > >>> def list_users(self): > >>> ... > >>> > >>> Having the policy name the same as the method name made it easier for > the decorator implementation to resolve the policy needed to protect the API > because it just looked at the name of the wrapped method. The advantage was > that it was easy to implement new APIs because you only needed to add a > policy, implement the method, and make sure you decorate the implementation. > >>> > >>> While this worked, we are moving away from it entirely. The decorator > implementation was ridiculously complicated. Only a handful of keystone > developers understood it. With the addition of system-scope, it would have > only become more convoluted. It also enables a much more copy-paste pattern > (e.g., so long as I wrap my method with this decorator implementation, > things should work right?). Instead, we're calling enforcement within the > controller implementation to ensure things are easier to understand. It > requires developers to be cognizant of how different token types affect the > resources within an API. That said, coupling the policy name to the method > name is no longer a requirement for keystone. > >>> > >>> Hopefully, that helps explain why we needed them to match. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Also we have action API (i know from nova not sure from other > services) like POST /servers/{server_id}/action {addSecurityGroup} and their > current policy name is all inconsistent. few have policy name including > their resource name like > "os_compute_api:os-flavor-access:add_tenant_access", few has 'action' in > policy name like "os_compute_api:os-admin-actions:reset_state" and few has > direct action name like "os_compute_api:os-console-output" > >>> > >>> > >>> Since the actions API relies on the request body and uses a single HTTP > method, does it make sense to have the HTTP method in the policy name? It > feels redundant, and we might be able to establish a convention that's more > meaningful for things like action APIs. It looks like cinder has a similar > pattern [0]. > >>> > >>> [0] > https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/block-storage/v3/index.html#volume-actions-volumes-action > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> May be we can make them consistent with > <service-type>:<resource>:<action_with_snake_case> or any better opinion. > >>>> > >>>> > From: Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@gmail.com>> The topic of having > consistent policy names has popped up a few times this week. > >>>> > > >>>> > I would love to have this nailed down before we go through all the > policy rules again. In my head I hope in Nova we can go through each policy > rule and do the following: > >>>> > * move to new consistent policy name, deprecate existing name* > hardcode scope check to project, system or user** (user, yes... keypairs, > yuck, but its how they work)** deprecate in rule scope checks, which are > largely bogus in Nova anyway* make read/write/admin distinction** therefore > adding the "noop" role, amount other things > >>>> > >>>> + policy granularity. > >>>> > >>>> It is good idea to make the policy improvement all together and for > all rules as you mentioned. But my worries is how much load it will be on > operator side to migrate all policy rules at same time? What will be the > deprecation period etc which i think we can discuss on proposed spec - > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/547850 > >>> > >>> > >>> Yeah, that's another valid concern. I know at least one operator has > weighed in already. I'm curious if operators have specific input here. > >>> > >>> It ultimately depends on if they override existing policies or not. If > a deployment doesn't have any overrides, it should be a relatively simple > change for operators to consume. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -gmann > >>>> > >>>> > Thanks,John > __________________________________________________________________________ > >>>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >>>> > Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > >>>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > __________________________________________________________________________ > >>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >>>> Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > >> > __________________________________________________________________________ > >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
