Ah, OK, you're saying that there's a missing [] around the
<monitor-request>. This goes back to a change that we made to the
ovsdb-server protocol a long time ago to allow multiple
<monitor-request> objects instead of just a single one. ovsdb-server
still supports this form. You can see this documented in
Documentation/ref/ovsdb-server.7.rst:
For backward compatibility, ``ovsdb-server`` currently permits a single
<monitor-request> to be used instead of an array; it is treated as a
single-element array. Future versions of ``ovsdb-server`` might remove this
compatibility feature.
I guess we should change ovsdb-idl.c to use an array now. Oops.
Anyway, that's easy enough, so I sent a patch:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/882710/
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:38:34PM -0800, Anil Jangam wrote:
> Hello Ben,
>
> The <monitor-requests> object maps the name of the table to be monitored
>
> to an array of <monitor-request> objects. Each <monitor-request> is an
>
> object with the following members:
>
> "columns": [<column>*] optional
>
> "select": <monitor-select> optional
>
>
>
> As the <monitor-requests> maps the table name to be monitored to an array
> of <monitor-request>, my interpretation of it is as "Table Name <--> Array
> of <monitor-request>"
>
> I am giving an example message is given below.
>
> {
> "id": "c5c09c07-11c1-449b-8f04-016fefe15844",
> "method": "monitor",
> "params": [
> "hardware_vtep",
> "91c9eed4-00bb-48e3-b2d9-51e0364bbdc2",
> {
> "Physical_Locator": [
> {
> "columns": [
> "dst_ip",
> "encapsulation_type",
> "_uuid"
> ],
> "select": {
> "initial": true,
> "insert": true,
> "delete": true,
> "modify": true
> }
> },
> {
> "columns": [
> "_uuid",
> "locators"
> ],
> "select": {
> "initial": true,
> "insert": true,
> "delete": true,
> "modify": true
> }
> }
> ]
> }
> ]
> }
>
>
> /anil.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:03:13PM -0800, Anil Jangam wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The RFC7047 states below about the Monitor request.
> > >
> > > The request object has the
> > >
> > > following members:
> > >
> > > o "method": "monitor"
> > >
> > > o "params": [<db-name>, <json-value>, <monitor-requests>]
> > >
> > > o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
> > >
> > >
> > > The <json-value> parameter is used to match subsequent update
> > >
> > > notifications (see below) to this request.
> > >
> > >
> > > The <monitor-requests> object maps the name of the table to be monitored
> > >
> > > to an array of <monitor-request> objects. Each <monitor-request> is an
> > >
> > > object with the following members:
> > >
> > > "columns": [<column>*] optional
> > >
> > > "select": <monitor-select> optional
> > >
> > > The columns, if present, define the columns within the table to be
> > monitored.
> > >
> > > <monitor-select> is an object with the following members:
> > >
> > > "initial": <boolean> optional
> > >
> > > "insert": <boolean> optional
> > >
> > > "delete": <boolean> optional
> > >
> > > "modify": <boolean> optional
> > >
> > > The contents of this object specify how the columns or table are to be
> > > monitored,
> > >
> > > as explained in more detail below.
> > >
> > >
> > > However, when I look at some of the legitimate samples of the Monitor
> > > requests, they are encoded as below.
> > >
> > > {
> > > "id": "c5c09c07-11c1-449b-8f04-016fefe15844",
> > > "method": "monitor",
> > > "params": [
> > > "hardware_vtep",
> > > "91c9eed4-00bb-48e3-b2d9-51e0364bbdc2",
> > > {
> > > "Physical_Locator": {
> > > "columns": [
> > > "dst_ip",
> > > "encapsulation_type",
> > > "_uuid"
> > > ],
> > > "select": {
> > > "initial": true,
> > > "insert": true,
> > > "delete": true,
> > > "modify": true
> > > }
> > > },
> > > "Physical_Locator_Set": {
> > > "columns": [
> > > "_uuid",
> > > "locators"
> > > ],
> > > "select": {
> > > "initial": true,
> > > "insert": true,
> > > "delete": true,
> > > "modify": true
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > > ]
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If we go by the RFC encoding rules, "params" contains the
> > > <monitor-requests>, which maps the "Table name" to an array of
> > > <Monitor-request> object. So IMHO, the table names comes only once in the
> > > message. Correct?
> >
> > Yes. That's what I see above. The table names are Physical_Locator and
> > Physical_Locator_Set, and each of them is mentioned once.
> > In the <monitor-requests> object "Physical_Locator" is mapped to:
> >
> > {
> > "columns": [
> > "dst_ip",
> > "encapsulation_type",
> > "_uuid"
> > ],
> > "select": {
> > "initial": true,
> > "insert": true,
> > "delete": true,
> > "modify": true
> > }
> > }
> >
> > and similarly for "Physical_Locator_Set".
> >
> > > Also, it is explicitly mentioned that (as below) and it does NOT contain
> > > the "Table name" in it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Each <monitor-request> is an
> > >
> > > object with the following members:
> > >
> > > "columns": [<column>*] optional
> > >
> > > "select": <monitor-select> optional
> > >
> > >
> > > However, in the message payload that I have, shows the tuple, which
> > > contains "Table : Columns : Select". This list of <monitor-request>
> > constitute
> > > the <monitor-requests> as per the RFC definition.
> > >
> > > I see this as the discrepancy between the RFC definition and how the
> > > message is actually sent by the controller.
> >
> > I don't understand what discrepancy you see. Can you show an example,
> > for example by providing how you think the above example should actually
> > be encoded?
> >
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
