Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
Hi Roy, On 05/02/2013 08:29 AM, Roy Golan wrote: On Wed 01 May 2013 08:41:15 PM IDT, Vered Volansky wrote: - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: Michael Pasternak mpast...@redhat.com, Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:12:09 PM Subject: RE: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation Thanks for the discussion. One clarifying question below... -Kari Vered - I disagree that this is by design. There is only one definition of what a correct value is, there should be no ambiguity about it[1] If the GUI prohibits you from a legal configuration - it should be fixed. if the backend allows an illegal configuration - a CDA should be added. My two cents - this is not OK, please open bugs (or even better - send patches!) for the specific issues. This was discussed with Michael (until he answers himself). More info on the issue - The backend validations are less restrictive than UI, but not contradicting it. This IS by design and is not a bug in general. The specific min-max differences example is for sure by design. In some (but I guess not all) cases the reasoning is a thought to expand possible values in the future. So this is how things are right now. I agree it looks weird that you might be able to set illegal values in REST and then connect via UI and see these values. I suppose it can always come up for devel discussion whether that should be changed. you cannot set any illegal value in REST-API, UI is more restrictive indeed, while api expose all backend capabilities (including those that are restricted in UI) So if I understanding correctly... The backend validations are checking legality. The UI may in some cases (like the specific ones I mentioned) impose additional restrictions/validations that further narrow the allowed input and this is by design and not a bug. Does that sum the current state about right? Yep. I disagree. The UI is validating input to fail as fast and save rountrips for better responsiveness and overall a better UX. This means validation are duplicated and sometimes, different - which I consider a bug - there is no good reason an action would be valid using the API and invalid with UI or vise versa. you basically repeating told above, if you'll read this tread from the beginning, kari gives two examples in Cluster load balancing both not even near to be different, it's just a different (UI) representation for same thing, UI actually hiding engine implementation details over mentioned properties. the main chalenge is to share the validation code which might be achievablle if GWT will support our validation annotation on beans (jsr303) - Vojetech this one I think you'll be able to help with this is nice to have approach and will work with static validations only (that does not require dialogue with the engine), in any case api don't have any validation concept (except of mandatory parameters existence) and should not have, as engine do this job, - and that what we trying to make clear, but again not always same validations as mentioned above will take place on both client and engine sides. Thanks, Kari - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:19:00 AM Subject: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? Thanks, Kari ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel -- Michael Pasternak RedHat, ENG-Virtualization RD ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel
Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
Hi guys, the main chalenge is to share the validation code which might be achievablle if GWT will support our validation annotation on beans (jsr303) - Vojetech this one I think you'll be able to help with this is nice to have approach and will work with static validations only (that does not require dialogue with the engine), in any case api don't have any validation concept (except of mandatory parameters existence) and should not have, as engine do this job, - and that what we trying to make clear, but again not always same validations as mentioned above will take place on both client and engine sides. AFAIK Java bean validation annotations (JSR-303 a.k.a javax.validation) are used directly on backend business entities, i.e. org.ovirt.engine.core.common.businessentities.* Today, GUI works directly with backend business entities, so we can support JSR-303 annotations in GWT code. However, in the long-term, we plan to use REST API, breaking bonds with Engine with regard to RPC/API protocol. For static validations (not involving server interaction), we will very likely end up implementing custom validation code, unrelated to backend validation annotations. For dynamic validations, I think we should let server handle this, otherwise we're just introducing more roundtrips and code complexity. Just an idea: as part of moving GUI to REST API, initiate some work on REST API JavaScript SDK that would include such common validation code. This SDK would be used by both WebAdmin, UserPortal, and any other web application talking to REST API. I'm the first one to volunteer for this, if it gets some green flag :) Vojtech - Original Message - From: Michael Pasternak mpast...@redhat.com To: Roy Golan rgo...@redhat.com Cc: Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com, Vojtech Szocs vsz...@redhat.com, engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 8:05:43 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation Hi Roy, On 05/02/2013 08:29 AM, Roy Golan wrote: On Wed 01 May 2013 08:41:15 PM IDT, Vered Volansky wrote: - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: Michael Pasternak mpast...@redhat.com, Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:12:09 PM Subject: RE: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation Thanks for the discussion. One clarifying question below... -Kari Vered - I disagree that this is by design. There is only one definition of what a correct value is, there should be no ambiguity about it[1] If the GUI prohibits you from a legal configuration - it should be fixed. if the backend allows an illegal configuration - a CDA should be added. My two cents - this is not OK, please open bugs (or even better - send patches!) for the specific issues. This was discussed with Michael (until he answers himself). More info on the issue - The backend validations are less restrictive than UI, but not contradicting it. This IS by design and is not a bug in general. The specific min-max differences example is for sure by design. In some (but I guess not all) cases the reasoning is a thought to expand possible values in the future. So this is how things are right now. I agree it looks weird that you might be able to set illegal values in REST and then connect via UI and see these values. I suppose it can always come up for devel discussion whether that should be changed. you cannot set any illegal value in REST-API, UI is more restrictive indeed, while api expose all backend capabilities (including those that are restricted in UI) So if I understanding correctly... The backend validations are checking legality. The UI may in some cases (like the specific ones I mentioned) impose additional restrictions/validations that further narrow the allowed input and this is by design and not a bug. Does that sum the current state about right? Yep. I disagree. The UI is validating input to fail as fast and save rountrips for better responsiveness and overall a better UX. This means validation are duplicated and sometimes, different - which I consider a bug - there is no good reason an action would be valid using the API and invalid with UI or vise versa. you basically repeating told above, if you'll read this tread from the beginning, kari gives two examples in Cluster load balancing both not even near to be different, it's just a different (UI) representation for same thing, UI actually hiding engine implementation details over mentioned properties. the main chalenge is to share the validation code which might be achievablle if GWT will support our validation annotation on beans (jsr303) - Vojetech this one I think you'll be able to help with this is nice to have approach and will work with static validations only (that does not require dialogue with the engine), in any case api don't have any validation concept (except of mandatory parameters
Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
REST shouldn't have any validations (perhaps maybe only that the passed type is correct, etc. - Michael, correct me if I'm wrong). The real validations are in the backend, which both REST and the GUI invoke. Any validation the GUI does in addition to the backend is just a user-experience enhancement (e.g., if !@#^!^$) is not a valid DC name, there is no reason to send it to the backend). Vered - I disagree that this is by design. There is only one definition of what a correct value is, there should be no ambiguity about it[1] If the GUI prohibits you from a legal configuration - it should be fixed. if the backend allows an illegal configuration - a CDA should be added. My two cents - this is not OK, please open bugs (or even better - send patches!) for the specific issues. [1] Just to be clear, there is a difference between not being able to do something from the UI and having different validations. For example, there is no GUI for scanning a storage domain (http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Domain_Scan). I'd prefer having a GUI for that too, but not having it is just a missing capability, not a disambiguity with REST. - Original Message - From: Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com To: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:15:31 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:19:00 AM Subject: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? This is the intended behaviour. The UI is often more restrictive than the api. By definition the api is more lenient that the UI. Regards, Vered Thanks, Kari ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
- Original Message - From: Allon Mureinik amure...@redhat.com To: Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:05:34 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation REST shouldn't have any validations (perhaps maybe only that the passed type is correct, etc. - Michael, correct me if I'm wrong). I never said REST have any validations. When using REST only the backend validations are invoked. When using the UI there might be more validations only for UI before the backend validations are ever invoked. These validations aren't invoked for REST. The real validations are in the backend, which both REST and the GUI invoke. Any validation the GUI does in addition to the backend is just a user-experience enhancement (e.g., if !@#^!^$) is not a valid DC name, there is no reason to send it to the backend). Vered - I disagree that this is by design. There is only one definition of what a correct value is, there should be no ambiguity about it[1] If the GUI prohibits you from a legal configuration - it should be fixed. if the backend allows an illegal configuration - a CDA should be added. My two cents - this is not OK, please open bugs (or even better - send patches!) for the specific issues. This was discussed with Michael (until he answers himself). More info on the issue - The backend validations are less restrictive than UI, but not contradicting it. This IS by design and is not a bug in general. The specific min-max differences example is for sure by design. In some (but I guess not all) cases the reasoning is a thought to expand possible values in the future. So this is how things are right now. I agree it looks weird that you might be able to set illegal values in REST and then connect via UI and see these values. I suppose it can always come up for devel discussion whether that should be changed. [1] Just to be clear, there is a difference between not being able to do something from the UI and having different validations. For example, there is no GUI for scanning a storage domain (http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Domain_Scan). I'd prefer having a GUI for that too, but not having it is just a missing capability, not a disambiguity with REST. - Original Message - From: Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com To: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:15:31 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:19:00 AM Subject: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? This is the intended behaviour. The UI is often more restrictive than the api. By definition the api is more lenient that the UI. Regards, Vered Thanks, Kari ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
On 05/01/2013 10:34 AM, Vered Volansky wrote: - Original Message - From: Allon Mureinik amure...@redhat.com To: Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:05:34 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation REST shouldn't have any validations (perhaps maybe only that the passed type is correct, etc. - Michael, correct me if I'm wrong). I never said REST have any validations. When using REST only the backend validations are invoked. When using the UI there might be more validations only for UI before the backend validations are ever invoked. These validations aren't invoked for REST. this is correct. The real validations are in the backend, which both REST and the GUI invoke. Any validation the GUI does in addition to the backend is just a user-experience enhancement (e.g., if !@#^!^$) is not a valid DC name, there is no reason to send it to the backend). the reason for this is user experience in UI, e.g in some cases validation can be done on a client side (by regex etc showing errors in popup/balloon) instead of sending heavy request to the backend over the wire and getting an error in reply. Vered - I disagree that this is by design. There is only one definition of what a correct value is, there should be no ambiguity about it[1] If the GUI prohibits you from a legal configuration - it should be fixed. if the backend allows an illegal configuration - a CDA should be added. My two cents - this is not OK, please open bugs (or even better - send patches!) for the specific issues. This was discussed with Michael (until he answers himself). More info on the issue - The backend validations are less restrictive than UI, but not contradicting it. This IS by design and is not a bug in general. The specific min-max differences example is for sure by design. In some (but I guess not all) cases the reasoning is a thought to expand possible values in the future. So this is how things are right now. I agree it looks weird that you might be able to set illegal values in REST and then connect via UI and see these values. I suppose it can always come up for devel discussion whether that should be changed. you cannot set any illegal value in REST-API, UI is more restrictive indeed, while api expose all backend capabilities (including those that are restricted in UI) [1] Just to be clear, there is a difference between not being able to do something from the UI and having different validations. For example, there is no GUI for scanning a storage domain (http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Domain_Scan). I'd prefer having a GUI for that too, but not having it is just a missing capability, not a disambiguity with REST. - Original Message - From: Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com To: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:15:31 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:19:00 AM Subject: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? This is the intended behaviour. The UI is often more restrictive than the api. By definition the api is more lenient that the UI. Regards, Vered Thanks, Kari ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine
Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
Thanks for the discussion. One clarifying question below... -Kari Vered - I disagree that this is by design. There is only one definition of what a correct value is, there should be no ambiguity about it[1] If the GUI prohibits you from a legal configuration - it should be fixed. if the backend allows an illegal configuration - a CDA should be added. My two cents - this is not OK, please open bugs (or even better - send patches!) for the specific issues. This was discussed with Michael (until he answers himself). More info on the issue - The backend validations are less restrictive than UI, but not contradicting it. This IS by design and is not a bug in general. The specific min-max differences example is for sure by design. In some (but I guess not all) cases the reasoning is a thought to expand possible values in the future. So this is how things are right now. I agree it looks weird that you might be able to set illegal values in REST and then connect via UI and see these values. I suppose it can always come up for devel discussion whether that should be changed. you cannot set any illegal value in REST-API, UI is more restrictive indeed, while api expose all backend capabilities (including those that are restricted in UI) So if I understanding correctly... The backend validations are checking legality. The UI may in some cases (like the specific ones I mentioned) impose additional restrictions/validations that further narrow the allowed input and this is by design and not a bug. Does that sum the current state about right? Thanks, Kari - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:19:00 AM Subject: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? Thanks, Kari ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
- Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: Michael Pasternak mpast...@redhat.com, Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:12:09 PM Subject: RE: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation Thanks for the discussion. One clarifying question below... -Kari Vered - I disagree that this is by design. There is only one definition of what a correct value is, there should be no ambiguity about it[1] If the GUI prohibits you from a legal configuration - it should be fixed. if the backend allows an illegal configuration - a CDA should be added. My two cents - this is not OK, please open bugs (or even better - send patches!) for the specific issues. This was discussed with Michael (until he answers himself). More info on the issue - The backend validations are less restrictive than UI, but not contradicting it. This IS by design and is not a bug in general. The specific min-max differences example is for sure by design. In some (but I guess not all) cases the reasoning is a thought to expand possible values in the future. So this is how things are right now. I agree it looks weird that you might be able to set illegal values in REST and then connect via UI and see these values. I suppose it can always come up for devel discussion whether that should be changed. you cannot set any illegal value in REST-API, UI is more restrictive indeed, while api expose all backend capabilities (including those that are restricted in UI) So if I understanding correctly... The backend validations are checking legality. The UI may in some cases (like the specific ones I mentioned) impose additional restrictions/validations that further narrow the allowed input and this is by design and not a bug. Does that sum the current state about right? Yep. Thanks, Kari - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:19:00 AM Subject: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? Thanks, Kari ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
On Wed 01 May 2013 08:41:15 PM IDT, Vered Volansky wrote: - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: Michael Pasternak mpast...@redhat.com, Vered Volansky ve...@redhat.com Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:12:09 PM Subject: RE: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation Thanks for the discussion. One clarifying question below... -Kari Vered - I disagree that this is by design. There is only one definition of what a correct value is, there should be no ambiguity about it[1] If the GUI prohibits you from a legal configuration - it should be fixed. if the backend allows an illegal configuration - a CDA should be added. My two cents - this is not OK, please open bugs (or even better - send patches!) for the specific issues. This was discussed with Michael (until he answers himself). More info on the issue - The backend validations are less restrictive than UI, but not contradicting it. This IS by design and is not a bug in general. The specific min-max differences example is for sure by design. In some (but I guess not all) cases the reasoning is a thought to expand possible values in the future. So this is how things are right now. I agree it looks weird that you might be able to set illegal values in REST and then connect via UI and see these values. I suppose it can always come up for devel discussion whether that should be changed. you cannot set any illegal value in REST-API, UI is more restrictive indeed, while api expose all backend capabilities (including those that are restricted in UI) So if I understanding correctly... The backend validations are checking legality. The UI may in some cases (like the specific ones I mentioned) impose additional restrictions/validations that further narrow the allowed input and this is by design and not a bug. Does that sum the current state about right? Yep. I disagree. The UI is validating input to fail as fast and save rountrips for better responsiveness and overall a better UX. This means validation are duplicated and sometimes, different - which I consider a bug - there is no good reason an action would be valid using the API and invalid with UI or vise versa. the main chalenge is to share the validation code which might be achievablle if GWT will support our validation annotation on beans (jsr303) - Vojetech this one I think you'll be able to help with Thanks, Kari - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:19:00 AM Subject: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? Thanks, Kari ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
On 05/01/2013 08:12 PM, Whitcomb, Kari wrote: Thanks for the discussion. One clarifying question below... -Kari Vered - I disagree that this is by design. There is only one definition of what a correct value is, there should be no ambiguity about it[1] If the GUI prohibits you from a legal configuration - it should be fixed. if the backend allows an illegal configuration - a CDA should be added. My two cents - this is not OK, please open bugs (or even better - send patches!) for the specific issues. This was discussed with Michael (until he answers himself). More info on the issue - The backend validations are less restrictive than UI, but not contradicting it. This IS by design and is not a bug in general. The specific min-max differences example is for sure by design. In some (but I guess not all) cases the reasoning is a thought to expand possible values in the future. So this is how things are right now. I agree it looks weird that you might be able to set illegal values in REST and then connect via UI and see these values. I suppose it can always come up for devel discussion whether that should be changed. you cannot set any illegal value in REST-API, UI is more restrictive indeed, while api expose all backend capabilities (including those that are restricted in UI) So if I understanding correctly... The backend validations are checking legality. The UI may in some cases (like the specific ones I mentioned) impose additional restrictions/validations that further narrow the allowed input and this is by design and not a bug. Does that sum the current state about right? yep. Thanks, Kari - Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:19:00 AM Subject: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? Thanks, Kari -- Michael Pasternak RedHat, ENG-Virtualization RD ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
Re: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
- Original Message - From: Kari Whitcomb kari.whitc...@hp.com To: engine-devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:19:00 AM Subject: [Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? This is the intended behaviour. The UI is often more restrictive than the api. By definition the api is more lenient that the UI. Regards, Vered Thanks, Kari ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
[Engine-devel] REST vs. UI validation
I've been making use of the oVirt REST api, and have noticed that in several cases the validation done for a REST request is different than what the admin UI does. It seems that the UI is generally more restrictive on the data it will accept than the backend. So you can set things up using the REST api that the UI wouldn't let you do. Two examples I've hit recently, both in the cluster policy (load balancing section): - Cluster load balancing policy duration - the UI requires a value between 1 and 100, but the REST api seems to let you set it to any integer. - Cluster load balancing high and low thresholds / max and min service levels - The UI restricts the high value to 51-90% and the low value to 10-50%. But the backend only requires that the values be 0-100% and that low can't be greater than high. So my question - is this intended behavior, or is it a bug that the validation is different? If similar validation should be done through both the UI and REST api, should the UI be less restrictive, or the backend more restrictive? Thanks, Kari ___ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
