Hi Lukasz, I have the same thoughts - we have to design a good Python library for dealing with Nailgun and this library has to be used by:
* Fuel CLI * System Tests * Fuel Upgrade * OSTF * other scripts But it's a big deal and we definetely should have a separate blueprint for this task. Moreover, we have to carefully consider its architecture to be convenient not only for CLI usage. Thanks, Igor On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Lukasz Oles <lo...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm researching if we can use Rally project for some Fuel testing. > It's part of 100-nodes blueprint[1]. > To write some Rally scenario I used our Fuelclient "library". > In it's current state it's really painful to use and it's not usable > as production tool. > > Here is the list of the biggest issues: > > 1. If API returns code other than 20x it exits. Literally it calls > sys.exit(). It should just rise Exception. > 2. Using API Client as a Singleton. In theory we can have more than > one connection, but all new objects will use default connection. > 3. Can not use keystone token. It requires user and password. > Server address and all credentials can be given via config file or > environment variables. There is no way to set it during client > initialization. > > All this issues show that library was designed only with CLI in mind. > Especially issue nr 1. > Now I know why ostf doesn't use fuelcient, why Rally wrote their own > client. And I can bet that MOX team is also using their own version. > > I'm aware of Fuelclient refactoring blueprint[1] I reviewed it and > gave +1 to most of the reviews. Unfortunately it focuses on CLI usage. > Move to Cliff is very good idea, > but for library it actually makes things worse [2] like moving data > validation to CLI or initializing object using single dictionary > instead of normal arguments. > > I think instead of focusing on CLI usage we should focus on a library > part. To make it easier to use by other programs. After that we can > focus on CLI. It's very important now when we are planning to support > 100 nodes and more in future because more and more users will start > use Fuel via API instead of UI. > > What do you think about this? > > Regards, > > [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/refactoring-for-fuelclient > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117294/ > > > > > Regards, > > -- > Łukasz Oleś > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev