Re: [Openstack] Keystone's Swift Integration

2012-03-20 Thread Chmouel Boudjnah
Hi Maru,

I probably can land something by tomorrow or thursday and we can see what
the keystone peoples would want to do with it. since this part of the code
don't affect much keystone core, I have hope this could land before essex
release.

The main problem was that it needed a bit of shuffling around so I wanted
to implement that only for Folsom.

IMO the swift_auth middleware is still usable as it is, having public
container is a use-case but not the most important one.

Cheers,
Chmouel.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Maru Newby  wrote:

> Hi Chmouel,
>
> Skipping for now is pragmatic, but I'd definitely want to implement stubs
> after your change lands to ensure that unit tests always run.
>
> I vote for implementing support for unauthenticated access asap.
>  Anonymous access to Swift is a very important use case, and not having it
> means that  Keystone's swift middleware is not usable as-is.  Deployers
> will have to implement and maintain that functionality themselves until
> this is resolved.  What will it take to have it go in for this release?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Maru
>
> On 2012-03-20, at 2:43 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
> > Hi Maru,
> >
> > Sorry I have been taking long to come to you on this, I have revived
> > review  4529[1] which add the swift tests. I was talking to termie
> > about it sometime ago and the way we decided to do is to skip the
> > tests if Swift is not installed[2]. Feel free to add stubs as this is
> > not ideal.
> >
> > I was working as well on container-sync and anonymous requests but was
> > not sure if this should go in for Folsom or for this release.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chmouel.
> >
> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#change,4529
> > [2] Ideally I would love to have swift.common.*/swiftclient go to
> > another package but that's probably a discussion for Folsom summit.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Maru Newby  wrote:
> >> I'd like to write unit tests for keystone.middleware.swift_auth in
> advance of some functional changes (adding support for unauthenticated
> container sync and referrer access).  It appears that swift_auth lacks unit
> tests, though.  Is this due to its dependency on swift, or is there another
> reason?
> >>
> >> Given that untested code is difficult to maintain, what would the best
> option be to add tests for swift_auth?  Ideally the module would just move
> to the swift repo, but if for some reason that's not an option, I'm
> prepared to use stubs.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>
> >> Maru
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> >> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> >> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] Keystone's Swift Integration

2012-03-20 Thread Maru Newby
Hi Chmouel,

Skipping for now is pragmatic, but I'd definitely want to implement stubs after 
your change lands to ensure that unit tests always run.

I vote for implementing support for unauthenticated access asap.  Anonymous 
access to Swift is a very important use case, and not having it means that  
Keystone's swift middleware is not usable as-is.  Deployers will have to 
implement and maintain that functionality themselves until this is resolved.  
What will it take to have it go in for this release?

Thanks,


Maru   

On 2012-03-20, at 2:43 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:

> Hi Maru,
> 
> Sorry I have been taking long to come to you on this, I have revived
> review  4529[1] which add the swift tests. I was talking to termie
> about it sometime ago and the way we decided to do is to skip the
> tests if Swift is not installed[2]. Feel free to add stubs as this is
> not ideal.
> 
> I was working as well on container-sync and anonymous requests but was
> not sure if this should go in for Folsom or for this release.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chmouel.
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#change,4529
> [2] Ideally I would love to have swift.common.*/swiftclient go to
> another package but that's probably a discussion for Folsom summit.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Maru Newby  wrote:
>> I'd like to write unit tests for keystone.middleware.swift_auth in advance 
>> of some functional changes (adding support for unauthenticated container 
>> sync and referrer access).  It appears that swift_auth lacks unit tests, 
>> though.  Is this due to its dependency on swift, or is there another reason?
>> 
>> Given that untested code is difficult to maintain, what would the best 
>> option be to add tests for swift_auth?  Ideally the module would just move 
>> to the swift repo, but if for some reason that's not an option, I'm prepared 
>> to use stubs.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> Maru
>> 
>> ___
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Re: [Openstack] Keystone's Swift Integration

2012-03-20 Thread Chmouel Boudjnah
Hi Maru,

Sorry I have been taking long to come to you on this, I have revived
review  4529[1] which add the swift tests. I was talking to termie
about it sometime ago and the way we decided to do is to skip the
tests if Swift is not installed[2]. Feel free to add stubs as this is
not ideal.

I was working as well on container-sync and anonymous requests but was
not sure if this should go in for Folsom or for this release.

Cheers,
Chmouel.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#change,4529
[2] Ideally I would love to have swift.common.*/swiftclient go to
another package but that's probably a discussion for Folsom summit.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Maru Newby  wrote:
> I'd like to write unit tests for keystone.middleware.swift_auth in advance of 
> some functional changes (adding support for unauthenticated container sync 
> and referrer access).  It appears that swift_auth lacks unit tests, though.  
> Is this due to its dependency on swift, or is there another reason?
>
> Given that untested code is difficult to maintain, what would the best option 
> be to add tests for swift_auth?  Ideally the module would just move to the 
> swift repo, but if for some reason that's not an option, I'm prepared to use 
> stubs.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Maru
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


[Openstack] Keystone's Swift Integration

2012-03-19 Thread Maru Newby
I'd like to write unit tests for keystone.middleware.swift_auth in advance of 
some functional changes (adding support for unauthenticated container sync and 
referrer access).  It appears that swift_auth lacks unit tests, though.  Is 
this due to its dependency on swift, or is there another reason?

Given that untested code is difficult to maintain, what would the best option 
be to add tests for swift_auth?  Ideally the module would just move to the 
swift repo, but if for some reason that's not an option, I'm prepared to use 
stubs.

Thanks,


Maru

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp