Re: Duplicate TO API routes

[Eric Friedrich (efriedri)]

Thumbs up on removal
> On May 19, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Jeremy Mitchell  wrote:
> 
> @Eric_Friedrich - any concerns from you regarding removal of these
> duplicate routes? Here they are to summarize:
> 
> remove GET /api/$version/deliveryservices/list in favor of GET
> /api/$version/deliveryservices
> remove GET /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/get in favor of GET
> /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id
> remove POST /api/$version/deliveryservices/create in favor of POST
> /api/$version/deliveryservices
> remove PUT /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/update in favor of PUT
> /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id
> remove GET /api/$version/cachegroups/list in favor of GET
> /api/$version/cachegroups
> remove POST /api/$version/cachegroups/create in favor of POST
> /api/$version/cachegroups
> remove PUT /api/$version/cachegroups/:id/update in favor of PUT
> /api/$version/cachegroups/:id
> remove DELETE /api/$version/cachegroups/:id/delete in favor of DELETE
> /api/$version/cachegroups/:id
> remove POST /api/$version/servers/create in favor of POST
> /api/$version/servers
> remove PUT /api/$version/servers/:id/update in favor of PUT
> /api/$version/servers/:id
> 
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Dewayne Richardson 
> wrote:
> 
>> And as long as the "duplicate" routes point to the same Perl module, I'm ok
>> as well
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Dave Neuman  wrote:
>> 
>>> I assume you did a check of the client to make sure it wasn't using those
>>> routes?
>>> Other than that, no concerns here.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <
>> mitchell...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 As we move towards a new authorization model on the TO API which
>> includes
 roles, capabilities and tenancy, it's important to remove any cruft
>> from
 the API to ease this new implementation. I've put some effort into
 organizing the TO routes file (
 https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/blob/
 master/traffic_ops/app/lib/TrafficOpsRoutes.pm#L373)
 but I'd also like to remove any duplicate routes.
 
 We have a few duplicates mainly in the area of deliveryservice,
>> servers,
 and cachegroups. This jira outlines the duplicates and suggests which
 routes to remove - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TC-82
 
 If these routes are being used, they would not be removed until 2.1
>>> giving
 everyone time to use the standard ones.
 
 Concerns?
 
 Jeremy
 
>>> 
>> 

Re: Duplicate TO API routes

[Jeremy Mitchell]

@Eric_Friedrich - any concerns from you regarding removal of these
duplicate routes? Here they are to summarize:

remove GET /api/$version/deliveryservices/list in favor of GET
/api/$version/deliveryservices
remove GET /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/get in favor of GET
/api/$version/deliveryservices/:id
remove POST /api/$version/deliveryservices/create in favor of POST
/api/$version/deliveryservices
remove PUT /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/update in favor of PUT
/api/$version/deliveryservices/:id
remove GET /api/$version/cachegroups/list in favor of GET
/api/$version/cachegroups
remove POST /api/$version/cachegroups/create in favor of POST
/api/$version/cachegroups
remove PUT /api/$version/cachegroups/:id/update in favor of PUT
/api/$version/cachegroups/:id
remove DELETE /api/$version/cachegroups/:id/delete in favor of DELETE
/api/$version/cachegroups/:id
remove POST /api/$version/servers/create in favor of POST
/api/$version/servers
remove PUT /api/$version/servers/:id/update in favor of PUT
/api/$version/servers/:id

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Dewayne Richardson 
wrote:

> And as long as the "duplicate" routes point to the same Perl module, I'm ok
> as well
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Dave Neuman  wrote:
>
> > I assume you did a check of the client to make sure it wasn't using those
> > routes?
> > Other than that, no concerns here.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <
> mitchell...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As we move towards a new authorization model on the TO API which
> includes
> > > roles, capabilities and tenancy, it's important to remove any cruft
> from
> > > the API to ease this new implementation. I've put some effort into
> > > organizing the TO routes file (
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/blob/
> > > master/traffic_ops/app/lib/TrafficOpsRoutes.pm#L373)
> > > but I'd also like to remove any duplicate routes.
> > >
> > > We have a few duplicates mainly in the area of deliveryservice,
> servers,
> > > and cachegroups. This jira outlines the duplicates and suggests which
> > > routes to remove - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TC-82
> > >
> > > If these routes are being used, they would not be removed until 2.1
> > giving
> > > everyone time to use the standard ones.
> > >
> > > Concerns?
> > >
> > > Jeremy
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Move Traffic Control to full GitHub

[Chris Lemmons]

Aye, and we can't call the vote until Sunday at the earliest, to give
everyone time to contribute. We seem to be pretty +1 on the change, but
it's important to give everyone a chance.

Also, I think the +1s here are for Issues, PRs, and Tags in GitHub. I do
believe we'll get access to the Wiki, too, and I think we should seriously
contemplate moving things to the GitHub Wiki as well, but I don't think
these +1s represent a consensus to do that. I'd suggest we table attempts
at Wiki-port consensus until we have a chance to play with the shiny new
GitHub and see what we'd really be getting. GitHub wiki is nice because
it's directly connected and integrated with the rest of the project,
complete with single identity, but it's not as featureful as the wiki we
currently enjoy. We'll want to look carefully to see where we want to go.

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 AM Hank Beatty  wrote:

> +1
>
> On 05/18/2017 04:32 PM, Jan van Doorn wrote:
> > In
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bdb9b073343f49c1d5b85147eb9d260bf7ad15d61384929993c7e1d@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
> > Dave
> > mentioned that we can now move to "full" GitHub. Some more information in
> > that thread if you are not familiar. I would like to call an official
> vote
> > on that.
> >
> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> >   [ ] +1 Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub
> >   [ ]  0 No opinion
> >   [ ] -1 Do not Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub because...
> >
> > Rgds,
> > JvD
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Move Traffic Control to full GitHub

[Jan van Doorn]

(hope I'm replying to Ryan re wiki move, Google mail is confusing)

I think we want to hold off on the Wiki. Full Github means just issues and
git work flow in this case.

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 AM Hank Beatty  wrote:

> +1
>
> On 05/18/2017 04:32 PM, Jan van Doorn wrote:
> > In
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bdb9b073343f49c1d5b85147eb9d260bf7ad15d61384929993c7e1d@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
> > Dave
> > mentioned that we can now move to "full" GitHub. Some more information in
> > that thread if you are not familiar. I would like to call an official
> vote
> > on that.
> >
> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> >   [ ] +1 Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub
> >   [ ]  0 No opinion
> >   [ ] -1 Do not Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub because...
> >
> > Rgds,
> > JvD
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Move Traffic Control to full GitHub

[Hank Beatty]

+1

On 05/18/2017 04:32 PM, Jan van Doorn wrote:

In
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bdb9b073343f49c1d5b85147eb9d260bf7ad15d61384929993c7e1d@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
Dave
mentioned that we can now move to "full" GitHub. Some more information in
that thread if you are not familiar. I would like to call an official vote
on that.

This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

  [ ] +1 Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub
  [ ]  0 No opinion
  [ ] -1 Do not Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub because...

Rgds,
JvD

Re: [VOTE] Move Traffic Control to full GitHub

[Eric Friedrich (efriedri)]

I don’t think we can begin moving stuff over until we have write access to the 
Github repo. It looks like the Issues and Wiki tabs are disabled currently

—Eric

On May 19, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Durfey, Ryan 
> wrote:

Unless there are any objections:

  *   Ashish and I will begin migrating the conf wiki pages to github on Monday.
 *   We also need to add a release notation to the page titles so we know 
to which release the discussions apply.
 *   As we copy things over, we will move the existing conf wiki pages 
under an “Archive” page so we can recover anything missed.
 *   Not sure how easy it will be to pull the bottom of page and in-line 
comments in some of the conf wiki pages.  We may just copy over some of the 
more critical or unresolved items and abandon the rest in the conf wiki archive.
  *   Once that is finished we will also work to move the bugs and features 
over and setup labels.


Ryan DurfeyM | 303-524-5099


From: Jason Tucker >
Reply-To: 
"dev@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org"
 
>,
 "jasonwtuc...@gmail.com" 
>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:18 AM
To: 
"us...@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org"
 
>
Cc: 
"dev@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org"
 
>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Traffic Control to full GitHub

+1

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Dremin, Sergey 
>
wrote:

+1

On 5/18/17, 2:32 PM, "Jan van Doorn" 
> wrote:

 In
 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bdb9b073343f49c1d5b85147eb9d2
60bf7ad15d61384929993c7e1d@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
 Dave
 mentioned that we can now move to "full" GitHub. Some more information
in
 that thread if you are not familiar. I would like to call an official
vote
 on that.

 This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

  [ ] +1 Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub
  [ ]  0 No opinion
  [ ] -1 Do not Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub because...

 Rgds,
 JvD

Re: [VOTE] Move Traffic Control to full GitHub

[Jason Tucker]

+1

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Dremin, Sergey 
wrote:

> +1
>
> On 5/18/17, 2:32 PM, "Jan van Doorn"  wrote:
>
> In
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bdb9b073343f49c1d5b85147eb9d2
> 60bf7ad15d61384929993c7e1d@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
> Dave
> mentioned that we can now move to "full" GitHub. Some more information
> in
> that thread if you are not familiar. I would like to call an official
> vote
> on that.
>
> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
>  [ ] +1 Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub
>  [ ]  0 No opinion
>  [ ] -1 Do not Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub because...
>
> Rgds,
> JvD
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Move Traffic Control to full GitHub

[Dremin, Sergey]

+1

On 5/18/17, 2:32 PM, "Jan van Doorn"  wrote:

In

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bdb9b073343f49c1d5b85147eb9d260bf7ad15d61384929993c7e1d@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
Dave
mentioned that we can now move to "full" GitHub. Some more information in
that thread if you are not familiar. I would like to call an official vote
on that.

This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

 [ ] +1 Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub
 [ ]  0 No opinion
 [ ] -1 Do not Move Traffic Control to use full GitHub because...

Rgds,
JvD

Re: [VOTE] Move Traffic Control to full GitHub

[Nir Sopher]

+1
As I believe it may improve collaboration and PR workflows.

On May 19, 2017 2:58 AM, "Jeremy Mitchell"  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Dave Neuman  wrote:
>
> > +1, thanks for putting the vote up Jan
> >
> > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Steve Malenfant 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> >
>