Re: [foreman-dev] Discourse summary week 2 (ish)
I am one of the (silent) +1 voices Greg mentioned. Discourse would be a very welcomed move for me, there are a number of reasons, which Greg already mentioned as well. For me the one key reason is the possibility to have multiple categories to have discussions and share information in a proper context. On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 3:46:01 PM UTC+1, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > > On 15/11/17 13:58, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > > I AM STRONGLY AGAINST *MIGRATING* OUR MAILING LISTS TO ANY KIND OF > > FORUM. > > I have included your opinion in both summaries. As a long standing > member of the community, your vote does carry some weight - but shouting > doesn't get you an extra one, and makes it appear like you're trying to > drown out the debate (which I'm sure you don't intend). > > If however you feel you've been misrepresented in either of my summaries > in some way, please let me know so I can correct that. > > > You do not have blessing. You gathered how many opinions? Two dozens? > > How many of us are subscribed here? > > No one decides "blessing" or lack of it unilaterally, not me, or you. > The community decides, and current feedback suggests far more in > *cautious* favour than against - certainly enough to continue the > discussion. > > One thing I have not yet done is post how I see the migration actually > happening *if* we choose to do it. That may help alleviate fears for > some, so I will try to get that posted shortly. My view of that process > won't include a side-by-side site for reasons I already expressed to > Ivan earlier. Again, this is all very much *if*, please don't assume > this is already decided. > > > You gathered how many opinions? Two dozens? How many of us are > > subscribed here? > > 670 addresses according to Google Groups, but I know that's not what you > mean :) > > As with all our discussions, we can only count the opinions that have > actually been stated. We don't wait forever on any decision, and we > frequently take action on 5 votes or less. > > As with other large debates we've had in the past, I'm being quite > reserved with pacing this debate, *precisely* because I know how > intrusive it is. I'm spending some of my time trying to convince those > who haven't said anything yet to contribute (even if they give it a -1) > so that we can be more sure of our final decision, but for sure we > *will* have to take a decision at some point. > > It's worth saying again, no final decisions have been taken, this is > still a consultation for now - but we *do* need to consult with the > users too. It's a far larger community, and I hope we'll get a nice > collection of opinions from them to look through. > > Greg > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[foreman-dev] Re: Foreman core nightly is currently broken
There is now another approach to fix this by using a plain Object instead of a Map[1]. This won't require any additional dependencies to be added. [1] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/4811 On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:27:13 AM UTC+2, ohadlevy wrote: > > Hi, > > Following up on the recent thread about merging PR's, just to let you know > that develop branch is currently broken due to [1] and PR to fix it as > already available at [2] and hopefully it will be back to usual business > within the next few hours. > > Please don't merge any JS related commits until the issue is resolved. > > thanks, > Ohad > > [1] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/4792 > [2] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/4809 > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foreman-dev] Re: [RFC] HTTP proxy for requests
I haven't thought as far as having it as an official plugin yet and not considered all the necessary parts for that. I can also add it into core. My thoughts on preferring to have it as a plugin were that, even though the code should be relatively small, as it would probably only be initialiser code to set the HTTP proxy for various http libraries, it does have a big impact on the whole application and having it as a plugin allows to disable all of it's doing by uninstalling it. I actually also briefly thought that it be a generic rubygem, but that would have gone way too far. :D On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 2:08:13 PM UTC+2, Marek Hulán wrote: > Why do you want to introduce it in a new plugin? I can see the global > proxy > setting in core. When we get to the point when we want to have separate > proxy > per library/plugin/communication then I think we should start using the > foreman_http_proxies plugin and enhance it if needed. From my experience, > starting a plugin brings a lot of extra maintenance effort, such as test > infrastructure, redmine setup, plugin manual write-up, hammer plugin from > scratch, support in installer. Why not simply add a new setting in > Foreman? > > -- > Marek > > On středa 21. června 2017 16:28:38 CEST Sebastian Gräßl wrote: > > The biggest part of this all is actually ensuring that all requests made > by > > the application are actually going through the HTTP proxy. > > > > As a solution to that, I was thinking of starting a plugin that > configures > > the proxy for HTTP libraries (Net::HTTP, Excon, RestClient, etc.) used. > > At first it would only make sure that we have all requests covered. > > As a nicety it could also have a debug mode to show outgoing requests > via > > something like httplog[1]. > > > > The HTTP proxy would at first just be one global setting, but later on > by > > extending the used libraries' underlying request methods it could > > also allow for dynamically choosing the appropriate proxy per request. > > This then can be used by the foreman_http_proxies[2] plugin. > > > > [1] https://github.com/trusche/httplog > > [2] https://github.com/jlsherrill/foreman_http_proxies > > > > On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 11:58:12 AM UTC+2, Marek Hulán wrote: > > > sorry for typo, it should have been: > > > > > > AFAIK we don't *have* the solution *implemented* atm. > > > > > > On čtvrtek 25. května 2017 11:49:24 CEST Marek Hulán wrote: > > > > Sorry for being late to the party, sending my 2c: > > > > > > > > I agree with having more complicated solution where users could have > > > > separate proxies per service is good long-term goal. AFAIK we don't > the > > > > solution atm. Therefore I think introducing support for single, > global > > > > proxy sounds as improvement already to what we have now (nothing). > > > > > > What's > > > > > > > good on this, migrating to specific proxies should be easy, the RFC > > > > explicitly[1] mentions it. The global proxy can have granular rules > of > > > > > > what > > > > > > > communication should be passed through untouched and what should be > sent > > > > through maybe other proxies. Another advantage I see is that the > global > > > > proxy offloads the configuration from Foreman/Katello, which does > not > > > > really belongs into our domain. > > > > > > > > Later, when the RFC is implemented via foreman_http_proxies plugin, > I'm > > > > happy to stop using global proxy and improve plugins to use > > > > foreman_http_proxies if it makes sense. It will take some time > before > > > > everyone adopts it. But meanwhile we'd still have the option to let > user > > > > configure their master proxy according to their needs. > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/theforeman/rfcs/pull/18/ > > > > files#diff-12584a6580dac145ae55c2b5d67088dfR45 > > > > > > > > > On 05/17/2017 07:57 AM, Tom McKay wrote: > > > > > > After reading the RFC I think that more robust and adaptable > > > > > > solution > > > > > > > > > would be better. A single env var is not going to cover the > needs of > > > > > > all the scenarios. A simple example may be accessing both > > > > > > registry.access.redhat.com <http://registry.access.redhat.com> > > > > > > (thro
Re: [foreman-dev] Re: [RFC] HTTP proxy for requests
The biggest part of this all is actually ensuring that all requests made by the application are actually going through the HTTP proxy. As a solution to that, I was thinking of starting a plugin that configures the proxy for HTTP libraries (Net::HTTP, Excon, RestClient, etc.) used. At first it would only make sure that we have all requests covered. As a nicety it could also have a debug mode to show outgoing requests via something like httplog[1]. The HTTP proxy would at first just be one global setting, but later on by extending the used libraries' underlying request methods it could also allow for dynamically choosing the appropriate proxy per request. This then can be used by the foreman_http_proxies[2] plugin. [1] https://github.com/trusche/httplog [2] https://github.com/jlsherrill/foreman_http_proxies On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 11:58:12 AM UTC+2, Marek Hulán wrote: > > sorry for typo, it should have been: > > AFAIK we don't *have* the solution *implemented* atm. > > -- > Marek > > On čtvrtek 25. května 2017 11:49:24 CEST Marek Hulán wrote: > > Sorry for being late to the party, sending my 2c: > > > > I agree with having more complicated solution where users could have > > separate proxies per service is good long-term goal. AFAIK we don't the > > solution atm. Therefore I think introducing support for single, global > > proxy sounds as improvement already to what we have now (nothing). > What's > > good on this, migrating to specific proxies should be easy, the RFC > > explicitly[1] mentions it. The global proxy can have granular rules of > what > > communication should be passed through untouched and what should be sent > > through maybe other proxies. Another advantage I see is that the global > > proxy offloads the configuration from Foreman/Katello, which does not > > really belongs into our domain. > > > > Later, when the RFC is implemented via foreman_http_proxies plugin, I'm > > happy to stop using global proxy and improve plugins to use > > foreman_http_proxies if it makes sense. It will take some time before > > everyone adopts it. But meanwhile we'd still have the option to let user > > configure their master proxy according to their needs. > > > > [1] https://github.com/theforeman/rfcs/pull/18/ > > files#diff-12584a6580dac145ae55c2b5d67088dfR45 > > > > -- > > Marek > > > > On středa 17. května 2017 14:22:28 CEST Justin Sherrill wrote: > > > On 05/17/2017 07:57 AM, Tom McKay wrote: > > > > After reading the RFC I think that more robust and adaptable > solution > > > > would be better. A single env var is not going to cover the needs of > > > > all the scenarios. A simple example may be accessing both > > > > registry.access.redhat.com <http://registry.access.redhat.com> > > > > (through proxy) and myopenshift:5000 (no proxy). > > > > > > > > As @jlsherrill noted on the PR, the temporary solution for the > > > > foreman-docker plugin is alright for the moment. > > > > > > I'd like to echo what tom said, we've had many users that want to > access > > > content externally through a proxy and internally (where the proxy is > > > not controlled by them and does not properly proxy internal requests). > > > Its happened enough for me to say that a simple solution is not good > > > enough long term. > > > > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Sebastian Gräßl > > > > > > > > <seba...@validcode.me <mailto:seba...@validcode.me > >> wrote: > > > > There was some feedback regarding this on the PR[1] mentioned in > > > > the beginning. > > > > There is already a RFC[2] regarding this and a plugin[3] to > > > > implement the solution proposed in the RFC. > > > > > > > > The solution proposed by jlsherrill allows to add multiple > > > > HTTP-proxies in Foreman and use these in plugins and allow to > > > > configure what HTTP-proxy should be used for what requests. > > > > So far the plugin only adds the ability to add HTTP proxies and > > > > misses a essential part, which is applying the HTTP proxies to > > > > requests. > > > > > > > > While looking at how other applications handle this and also > > > > considering typical HTTP proxy configurations, it feels that > such > > > > a solution would make it rather complex in practice to apply. > > > > Configu
[foreman-dev] [RFC] HTTP proxy for requests
Hej, at the moment there is a PR[1] open on foreman-docker to set a HTTP proxy for requests to registries. The PR allows to set a HTTP proxy on the HTTP client, in this case deep down Excon, only for registry requests. A HTTP proxy won't be set on requests if a `HTTP_PROXY` environment variable is available, since it is an unlikely setup to have registry request routed over a different proxy than other requests. However setting it via the environment variable will allow requests to succeed to resources available by the HTTP proxy, but will fail for those inside and possible blocked. The `HTTP_PROXY` environment variable seems to be a standard, and therefore Excon is built to use it when available. Excon is used by docker-api as well as fog, it might be used by other components and there might be other parts that use another HTTP client like RestClient, which also respects the variable. This means at the moment with that environment variable set some requests would already rely on it. In any case this should be in mentioned in the manual to be aware of, also because some operating systems set this globally. The question is should we make an afford to ensure deployment behind a HTTP proxy on a system with HTTP blocked works without issues and provide a way to configure it properly? I've tested Foreman with HTTP blocked and `HTTP_PROXY` set, but in a very basic setup, with the only external requests being to Docker registries outside and squid configured to just pass requests through regardless there to. It didn't show any apparent issue, but there are for sure issues with a more robust configured HTTP proxy. This raises another question: How common is a setup where external resources requiring HTTP are used with Foreman behind a HTTP proxy? Comments? All the best, Sebastian [1] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-docker/pull/189 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
