Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
I've completed this work. The two patches to migrate the code over and one additional bug fix are: Horizon: Copy os-nova-servers from searchlight ui https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444095/ Searchlight UI: Remove os-nova-servers resource type https://review.openstack.org/#/c/450067/ (depends-on 444095) Searchlight UI: Resource detail views have moved https://review.openstack.org/#/c/450068/ I have tested Searchlight UI and it doesn't break with the additional resource type registered, however: 1. There is duplication of actions in the action dropdown for instances rows. 2. The details page link is broken, which is addressed in the separate bug patch above. 3. The Horizon-side instances list is confused when an unmodified Searchlight UI is installed - table columns are also duplicated. Richard __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
Hi folks, I've completed the work in Horizon space (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444095/) but I've just tried to run up a devstack with searchlight enabled to test the searchlight-ui side and put together a patch there, but the devstack plugin for searchlight appears to be broken at the moment (I think because of bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/searchlight/+bug/1648255). Richard On 14 March 2017 at 09:43, Richard Jones wrote: > I'll definitely be looking at getting a searchlight-ui patch up for > the mirror side of my Horizon patch. > > Double registration largely depends on which particular aspect of the > resource type is being looked at. Most of the resource type > registration will just be replaced (with identical information) but > the kicker will be table columns and actions which are added by append > (via extensible service), so they'll all be duplicated if both > registrations run. So ideally both searchlight-ui and Horizon would be > updated at the same time. > > > Richard > > On 11 March 2017 at 04:34, Tripp, Travis S wrote: >> Hi Richard, >> >> I’m headed out for vacation so won’t be able to look through it until I get >> back. However, can you also please get an install of searchlight-ui running >> so that you can see if anything breaks? I know you don’t typically use >> devstack, but the searchlight devstack plugin installs searchlight UI. [0] >> >> The one thing I’m not sure about is how the resource registry handles >> potential double registrations. So, if the resource is registered both code >> bases, I don’t know what would get loaded. >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444095/2/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/instances/instances.module.js >> https://github.com/openstack/searchlight-ui/blob/master/searchlight_ui/static/resources/os-nova-servers/os-nova-servers.module.js#L57 >> >> [0] https://github.com/openstack/searchlight/tree/master/devstack >> >> Thanks, >> Travis >> >> On 3/9/17, 10:58 PM, "Richard Jones" wrote: >> >> Thanks, Steve! >> >> I've put together an initial patch >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444095/ which pulls in the >> os-nova-servers module and a little extra to make it work in Horizon's >> codebase. I've tried to make minimal edits to the actual code - >> predominantly just editing module names. I've tested it and it mostly >> works on Horizon's side \o/ >> >> >> Richard >> >> On 10 March 2017 at 14:40, McLellan, Steven >> wrote: >> > My expertise in this area is deeply suspect but as long as we maintain >> the >> > mapping from the resource type names that searchlight uses >> (os-nova-servers) >> > to the modules we'll be OK. If you or Rob put a patch up against >> horizon I >> > (or a willing victim/volunteer) can test a searchlight-ui patch >> against it. >> > >> > >> > Original message >> > From: Richard Jones >> > Date: 3/9/17 21:13 (GMT-06:00) >> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >> > >> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource >> type >> > implementations >> > >> > Hey folks, >> > >> > Another potential issue is that the searchlight module structure and >> > Horizon's module structure are different in a couple of respects. I >> > could just retain the module structure from searchlight >> > ('resources.os-nova-servers') or, preferably, I could rename those >> > modules to match the Horizon structure more closely >> > ('horizon.app.resources.os-nova-servers') or more strictly >> > ('horizon.app.core.instances'). >> > >> > As far as I can tell none of the module names are referenced directly >> > outside of the module (apart from resources.module.js of course) so >> > moving the modules shouldn't affect any existing usage in searchlight >> > ui. >> > >> > We could bikeshed this for ages, so if I could just get Rob and Steve >> > to wrestle over it or something, that'd be good. Rob's pretty scrappy. >> > >> > >> > Richard >> > >> > >> > On 10 March 2017 at 09:56, Richard Jones >> wrote: >> >&
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
I'll definitely be looking at getting a searchlight-ui patch up for the mirror side of my Horizon patch. Double registration largely depends on which particular aspect of the resource type is being looked at. Most of the resource type registration will just be replaced (with identical information) but the kicker will be table columns and actions which are added by append (via extensible service), so they'll all be duplicated if both registrations run. So ideally both searchlight-ui and Horizon would be updated at the same time. Richard On 11 March 2017 at 04:34, Tripp, Travis S wrote: > Hi Richard, > > I’m headed out for vacation so won’t be able to look through it until I get > back. However, can you also please get an install of searchlight-ui running > so that you can see if anything breaks? I know you don’t typically use > devstack, but the searchlight devstack plugin installs searchlight UI. [0] > > The one thing I’m not sure about is how the resource registry handles > potential double registrations. So, if the resource is registered both code > bases, I don’t know what would get loaded. > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444095/2/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/instances/instances.module.js > https://github.com/openstack/searchlight-ui/blob/master/searchlight_ui/static/resources/os-nova-servers/os-nova-servers.module.js#L57 > > [0] https://github.com/openstack/searchlight/tree/master/devstack > > Thanks, > Travis > > On 3/9/17, 10:58 PM, "Richard Jones" wrote: > > Thanks, Steve! > > I've put together an initial patch > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444095/ which pulls in the > os-nova-servers module and a little extra to make it work in Horizon's > codebase. I've tried to make minimal edits to the actual code - > predominantly just editing module names. I've tested it and it mostly > works on Horizon's side \o/ > > > Richard > > On 10 March 2017 at 14:40, McLellan, Steven > wrote: > > My expertise in this area is deeply suspect but as long as we maintain > the > > mapping from the resource type names that searchlight uses > (os-nova-servers) > > to the modules we'll be OK. If you or Rob put a patch up against > horizon I > > (or a willing victim/volunteer) can test a searchlight-ui patch against > it. > > > > > > Original message > > From: Richard Jones > > Date: 3/9/17 21:13 (GMT-06:00) > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource > type > > implementations > > > > Hey folks, > > > > Another potential issue is that the searchlight module structure and > > Horizon's module structure are different in a couple of respects. I > > could just retain the module structure from searchlight > > ('resources.os-nova-servers') or, preferably, I could rename those > > modules to match the Horizon structure more closely > > ('horizon.app.resources.os-nova-servers') or more strictly > > ('horizon.app.core.instances'). > > > > As far as I can tell none of the module names are referenced directly > > outside of the module (apart from resources.module.js of course) so > > moving the modules shouldn't affect any existing usage in searchlight > > ui. > > > > We could bikeshed this for ages, so if I could just get Rob and Steve > > to wrestle over it or something, that'd be good. Rob's pretty scrappy. > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > On 10 March 2017 at 09:56, Richard Jones wrote: > >> OK, I will work on a plan that migrates the code into Horizon, thanks > >> everyone! > >> > >> Travis, can the searchlight details page stuff be done through > >> extending the base resource type in Horizon? If not, is that perhaps a > >> limitation of the extensible service? > >> > >> > >> Richard > >> > >> > >> On 10 March 2017 at 02:20, McLellan, Steven > >> wrote: > >>> I concur; option 4 is the only one makes sense to me and was what was > >>> intended originally. As long as we can do it in one fell swoop in one > cyclle > >>> (preferably sooner than later) there should be no issues. > >>> >
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
Hi Richard, I’m headed out for vacation so won’t be able to look through it until I get back. However, can you also please get an install of searchlight-ui running so that you can see if anything breaks? I know you don’t typically use devstack, but the searchlight devstack plugin installs searchlight UI. [0] The one thing I’m not sure about is how the resource registry handles potential double registrations. So, if the resource is registered both code bases, I don’t know what would get loaded. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444095/2/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/instances/instances.module.js https://github.com/openstack/searchlight-ui/blob/master/searchlight_ui/static/resources/os-nova-servers/os-nova-servers.module.js#L57 [0] https://github.com/openstack/searchlight/tree/master/devstack Thanks, Travis On 3/9/17, 10:58 PM, "Richard Jones" wrote: Thanks, Steve! I've put together an initial patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444095/ which pulls in the os-nova-servers module and a little extra to make it work in Horizon's codebase. I've tried to make minimal edits to the actual code - predominantly just editing module names. I've tested it and it mostly works on Horizon's side \o/ Richard On 10 March 2017 at 14:40, McLellan, Steven wrote: > My expertise in this area is deeply suspect but as long as we maintain the > mapping from the resource type names that searchlight uses (os-nova-servers) > to the modules we'll be OK. If you or Rob put a patch up against horizon I > (or a willing victim/volunteer) can test a searchlight-ui patch against it. > > > Original message > From: Richard Jones > Date: 3/9/17 21:13 (GMT-06:00) > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type > implementations > > Hey folks, > > Another potential issue is that the searchlight module structure and > Horizon's module structure are different in a couple of respects. I > could just retain the module structure from searchlight > ('resources.os-nova-servers') or, preferably, I could rename those > modules to match the Horizon structure more closely > ('horizon.app.resources.os-nova-servers') or more strictly > ('horizon.app.core.instances'). > > As far as I can tell none of the module names are referenced directly > outside of the module (apart from resources.module.js of course) so > moving the modules shouldn't affect any existing usage in searchlight > ui. > > We could bikeshed this for ages, so if I could just get Rob and Steve > to wrestle over it or something, that'd be good. Rob's pretty scrappy. > > > Richard > > > On 10 March 2017 at 09:56, Richard Jones wrote: >> OK, I will work on a plan that migrates the code into Horizon, thanks >> everyone! >> >> Travis, can the searchlight details page stuff be done through >> extending the base resource type in Horizon? If not, is that perhaps a >> limitation of the extensible service? >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> On 10 March 2017 at 02:20, McLellan, Steven >> wrote: >>> I concur; option 4 is the only one makes sense to me and was what was >>> intended originally. As long as we can do it in one fell swoop in one cyclle >>> (preferably sooner than later) there should be no issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/9/17, 8:35 AM, "Tripp, Travis S" wrote: >>> >>>>Let me get Matt B in on this discussion, but basically, option 4 is my >>>> initial feeling as Rob stated. >>>> >>>>One downside we saw with this approach is that we weren’t going to be >>>> able to take advantage of searchlight capabilities in details pages if >>>> everything was in native horizon. Although, I suppose that could be done by >>>> using the hz-if-services directive [0] if horizon will allow searchlight >>>> optimized code to be in the horizon repo. >>>> >>>>[0] >>>> https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/cloud-services/hz-if-services.directive.js >>>> >>>>-Travis >>>> >>>>On 3/9/17, 5:09 AM, "Rob Cresswell (rcressw
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
Thanks, Steve! I've put together an initial patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/444095/ which pulls in the os-nova-servers module and a little extra to make it work in Horizon's codebase. I've tried to make minimal edits to the actual code - predominantly just editing module names. I've tested it and it mostly works on Horizon's side \o/ Richard On 10 March 2017 at 14:40, McLellan, Steven wrote: > My expertise in this area is deeply suspect but as long as we maintain the > mapping from the resource type names that searchlight uses (os-nova-servers) > to the modules we'll be OK. If you or Rob put a patch up against horizon I > (or a willing victim/volunteer) can test a searchlight-ui patch against it. > > > Original message > From: Richard Jones > Date: 3/9/17 21:13 (GMT-06:00) > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type > implementations > > Hey folks, > > Another potential issue is that the searchlight module structure and > Horizon's module structure are different in a couple of respects. I > could just retain the module structure from searchlight > ('resources.os-nova-servers') or, preferably, I could rename those > modules to match the Horizon structure more closely > ('horizon.app.resources.os-nova-servers') or more strictly > ('horizon.app.core.instances'). > > As far as I can tell none of the module names are referenced directly > outside of the module (apart from resources.module.js of course) so > moving the modules shouldn't affect any existing usage in searchlight > ui. > > We could bikeshed this for ages, so if I could just get Rob and Steve > to wrestle over it or something, that'd be good. Rob's pretty scrappy. > > > Richard > > > On 10 March 2017 at 09:56, Richard Jones wrote: >> OK, I will work on a plan that migrates the code into Horizon, thanks >> everyone! >> >> Travis, can the searchlight details page stuff be done through >> extending the base resource type in Horizon? If not, is that perhaps a >> limitation of the extensible service? >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> On 10 March 2017 at 02:20, McLellan, Steven >> wrote: >>> I concur; option 4 is the only one makes sense to me and was what was >>> intended originally. As long as we can do it in one fell swoop in one cyclle >>> (preferably sooner than later) there should be no issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/9/17, 8:35 AM, "Tripp, Travis S" wrote: >>> >>>>Let me get Matt B in on this discussion, but basically, option 4 is my >>>> initial feeling as Rob stated. >>>> >>>>One downside we saw with this approach is that we weren’t going to be >>>> able to take advantage of searchlight capabilities in details pages if >>>> everything was in native horizon. Although, I suppose that could be done >>>> by >>>> using the hz-if-services directive [0] if horizon will allow searchlight >>>> optimized code to be in the horizon repo. >>>> >>>>[0] >>>> https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/cloud-services/hz-if-services.directive.js >>>> >>>>-Travis >>>> >>>>On 3/9/17, 5:09 AM, "Rob Cresswell (rcresswe)" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>I tried searching the meeting logs but couldn’t find where we >>>> discussed this in the Searchlight meeting. The conclusion at the time was >>>> option 4 IIRC. The main thing is to make sure we get it done within one >>>> cycle, even if it isn’t default. this means searchlight-ui doesn’t have to >>>> carry some horrible workarounds and can just remove the code from their >>>> repo. >>>> >>>>Basically; start putting the code in the Horizon repo, and when its >>>> done, Searchlight-UI can remove it from their repo. >>>> >>>>Rob >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 9 Mar 2017, at 04:22, Richard Jones >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Searchlight and Horizon folks, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to re-use the wonderful resource type code from >>>>> searchlight-ui (in particular os-nova-servers right now but >>>>> potentially others down the track) and was wondering whether you'
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
My expertise in this area is deeply suspect but as long as we maintain the mapping from the resource type names that searchlight uses (os-nova-servers) to the modules we'll be OK. If you or Rob put a patch up against horizon I (or a willing victim/volunteer) can test a searchlight-ui patch against it. Original message From: Richard Jones Date: 3/9/17 21:13 (GMT-06:00) To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations Hey folks, Another potential issue is that the searchlight module structure and Horizon's module structure are different in a couple of respects. I could just retain the module structure from searchlight ('resources.os-nova-servers') or, preferably, I could rename those modules to match the Horizon structure more closely ('horizon.app.resources.os-nova-servers') or more strictly ('horizon.app.core.instances'). As far as I can tell none of the module names are referenced directly outside of the module (apart from resources.module.js of course) so moving the modules shouldn't affect any existing usage in searchlight ui. We could bikeshed this for ages, so if I could just get Rob and Steve to wrestle over it or something, that'd be good. Rob's pretty scrappy. Richard On 10 March 2017 at 09:56, Richard Jones wrote: > OK, I will work on a plan that migrates the code into Horizon, thanks > everyone! > > Travis, can the searchlight details page stuff be done through > extending the base resource type in Horizon? If not, is that perhaps a > limitation of the extensible service? > > > Richard > > > On 10 March 2017 at 02:20, McLellan, Steven wrote: >> I concur; option 4 is the only one makes sense to me and was what was >> intended originally. As long as we can do it in one fell swoop in one cyclle >> (preferably sooner than later) there should be no issues. >> >> >> >> >> On 3/9/17, 8:35 AM, "Tripp, Travis S" wrote: >> >>>Let me get Matt B in on this discussion, but basically, option 4 is my >>>initial feeling as Rob stated. >>> >>>One downside we saw with this approach is that we weren’t going to be able >>>to take advantage of searchlight capabilities in details pages if everything >>>was in native horizon. Although, I suppose that could be done by using the >>>hz-if-services directive [0] if horizon will allow searchlight optimized >>>code to be in the horizon repo. >>> >>>[0] >>>https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/cloud-services/hz-if-services.directive.js >>> >>>-Travis >>> >>>On 3/9/17, 5:09 AM, "Rob Cresswell (rcresswe)" wrote: >>> >>>I tried searching the meeting logs but couldn’t find where we discussed >>> this in the Searchlight meeting. The conclusion at the time was option 4 >>> IIRC. The main thing is to make sure we get it done within one cycle, even >>> if it isn’t default. this means searchlight-ui doesn’t have to carry some >>> horrible workarounds and can just remove the code from their repo. >>> >>>Basically; start putting the code in the Horizon repo, and when its >>> done, Searchlight-UI can remove it from their repo. >>> >>>Rob >>> >>> >>>> On 9 Mar 2017, at 04:22, Richard Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Searchlight and Horizon folks, >>>> >>>> I'd like to re-use the wonderful resource type code from >>>> searchlight-ui (in particular os-nova-servers right now but >>>> potentially others down the track) and was wondering whether you'd had >>>> any thoughts about how we might share that code? Off the top of my >>>> head I see a few options: >>>> >>>> 1. We depend on the searchlight-ui as a Horizon requirement; this is >>>> pretty unlikely to happen (depending on any optional panel means it's >>>> not really optional any longer ;-) >>>> 2. We copy the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon; this is pretty >>> terrible. >>>> 3. We move the code from searchlight-ui into a separate project that >>>> both Horizon and searchlight-ui depend upon; this could be made to >>>> work, though it's Yet Another Project. >>>> 4. We move the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon. I think this is >>>> most likely to work. >&
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
Hey folks, Another potential issue is that the searchlight module structure and Horizon's module structure are different in a couple of respects. I could just retain the module structure from searchlight ('resources.os-nova-servers') or, preferably, I could rename those modules to match the Horizon structure more closely ('horizon.app.resources.os-nova-servers') or more strictly ('horizon.app.core.instances'). As far as I can tell none of the module names are referenced directly outside of the module (apart from resources.module.js of course) so moving the modules shouldn't affect any existing usage in searchlight ui. We could bikeshed this for ages, so if I could just get Rob and Steve to wrestle over it or something, that'd be good. Rob's pretty scrappy. Richard On 10 March 2017 at 09:56, Richard Jones wrote: > OK, I will work on a plan that migrates the code into Horizon, thanks > everyone! > > Travis, can the searchlight details page stuff be done through > extending the base resource type in Horizon? If not, is that perhaps a > limitation of the extensible service? > > > Richard > > > On 10 March 2017 at 02:20, McLellan, Steven wrote: >> I concur; option 4 is the only one makes sense to me and was what was >> intended originally. As long as we can do it in one fell swoop in one cyclle >> (preferably sooner than later) there should be no issues. >> >> >> >> >> On 3/9/17, 8:35 AM, "Tripp, Travis S" wrote: >> >>>Let me get Matt B in on this discussion, but basically, option 4 is my >>>initial feeling as Rob stated. >>> >>>One downside we saw with this approach is that we weren’t going to be able >>>to take advantage of searchlight capabilities in details pages if everything >>>was in native horizon. Although, I suppose that could be done by using the >>>hz-if-services directive [0] if horizon will allow searchlight optimized >>>code to be in the horizon repo. >>> >>>[0] >>>https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/cloud-services/hz-if-services.directive.js >>> >>>-Travis >>> >>>On 3/9/17, 5:09 AM, "Rob Cresswell (rcresswe)" wrote: >>> >>>I tried searching the meeting logs but couldn’t find where we discussed >>> this in the Searchlight meeting. The conclusion at the time was option 4 >>> IIRC. The main thing is to make sure we get it done within one cycle, even >>> if it isn’t default. this means searchlight-ui doesn’t have to carry some >>> horrible workarounds and can just remove the code from their repo. >>> >>>Basically; start putting the code in the Horizon repo, and when its >>> done, Searchlight-UI can remove it from their repo. >>> >>>Rob >>> >>> >>>> On 9 Mar 2017, at 04:22, Richard Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Searchlight and Horizon folks, >>>> >>>> I'd like to re-use the wonderful resource type code from >>>> searchlight-ui (in particular os-nova-servers right now but >>>> potentially others down the track) and was wondering whether you'd had >>>> any thoughts about how we might share that code? Off the top of my >>>> head I see a few options: >>>> >>>> 1. We depend on the searchlight-ui as a Horizon requirement; this is >>>> pretty unlikely to happen (depending on any optional panel means it's >>>> not really optional any longer ;-) >>>> 2. We copy the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon; this is pretty >>> terrible. >>>> 3. We move the code from searchlight-ui into a separate project that >>>> both Horizon and searchlight-ui depend upon; this could be made to >>>> work, though it's Yet Another Project. >>>> 4. We move the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon. I think this is >>>> most likely to work. >>>> >>>> What are your thoughts? Have I missed an option in this list that you >>>> think is a better one? Have I missed the mark in my analysis of the >>>> options I've presented? >>>> >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> >>> __ >>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>>> Unsubscribe: >>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>> __ >>>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>>Unsubscribe: >>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>>__ >>>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> __
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
OK, I will work on a plan that migrates the code into Horizon, thanks everyone! Travis, can the searchlight details page stuff be done through extending the base resource type in Horizon? If not, is that perhaps a limitation of the extensible service? Richard On 10 March 2017 at 02:20, McLellan, Steven wrote: > I concur; option 4 is the only one makes sense to me and was what was > intended originally. As long as we can do it in one fell swoop in one cyclle > (preferably sooner than later) there should be no issues. > > > > > On 3/9/17, 8:35 AM, "Tripp, Travis S" wrote: > >>Let me get Matt B in on this discussion, but basically, option 4 is my >>initial feeling as Rob stated. >> >>One downside we saw with this approach is that we weren’t going to be able to >>take advantage of searchlight capabilities in details pages if everything was >>in native horizon. Although, I suppose that could be done by using the >>hz-if-services directive [0] if horizon will allow searchlight optimized code >>to be in the horizon repo. >> >>[0] >>https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/cloud-services/hz-if-services.directive.js >> >>-Travis >> >>On 3/9/17, 5:09 AM, "Rob Cresswell (rcresswe)" wrote: >> >>I tried searching the meeting logs but couldn’t find where we discussed >> this in the Searchlight meeting. The conclusion at the time was option 4 >> IIRC. The main thing is to make sure we get it done within one cycle, even >> if it isn’t default. this means searchlight-ui doesn’t have to carry some >> horrible workarounds and can just remove the code from their repo. >> >>Basically; start putting the code in the Horizon repo, and when its done, >> Searchlight-UI can remove it from their repo. >> >>Rob >> >> >>> On 9 Mar 2017, at 04:22, Richard Jones wrote: >>> >>> Hi Searchlight and Horizon folks, >>> >>> I'd like to re-use the wonderful resource type code from >>> searchlight-ui (in particular os-nova-servers right now but >>> potentially others down the track) and was wondering whether you'd had >>> any thoughts about how we might share that code? Off the top of my >>> head I see a few options: >>> >>> 1. We depend on the searchlight-ui as a Horizon requirement; this is >>> pretty unlikely to happen (depending on any optional panel means it's >>> not really optional any longer ;-) >>> 2. We copy the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon; this is pretty >> terrible. >>> 3. We move the code from searchlight-ui into a separate project that >>> both Horizon and searchlight-ui depend upon; this could be made to >>> work, though it's Yet Another Project. >>> 4. We move the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon. I think this is >>> most likely to work. >>> >>> What are your thoughts? Have I missed an option in this list that you >>> think is a better one? Have I missed the mark in my analysis of the >>> options I've presented? >>> >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> >> __ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >>__ >>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >>__ >>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
I concur; option 4 is the only one makes sense to me and was what was intended originally. As long as we can do it in one fell swoop in one cyclle (preferably sooner than later) there should be no issues. On 3/9/17, 8:35 AM, "Tripp, Travis S" wrote: >Let me get Matt B in on this discussion, but basically, option 4 is my initial >feeling as Rob stated. > >One downside we saw with this approach is that we weren’t going to be able to >take advantage of searchlight capabilities in details pages if everything was >in native horizon. Although, I suppose that could be done by using the >hz-if-services directive [0] if horizon will allow searchlight optimized code >to be in the horizon repo. > >[0] >https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/cloud-services/hz-if-services.directive.js > >-Travis > >On 3/9/17, 5:09 AM, "Rob Cresswell (rcresswe)" wrote: > >I tried searching the meeting logs but couldn’t find where we discussed > this in the Searchlight meeting. The conclusion at the time was option 4 > IIRC. The main thing is to make sure we get it done within one cycle, even if > it isn’t default. this means searchlight-ui doesn’t have to carry some > horrible workarounds and can just remove the code from their repo. > >Basically; start putting the code in the Horizon repo, and when its done, > Searchlight-UI can remove it from their repo. > >Rob > > >> On 9 Mar 2017, at 04:22, Richard Jones wrote: >> >> Hi Searchlight and Horizon folks, >> >> I'd like to re-use the wonderful resource type code from >> searchlight-ui (in particular os-nova-servers right now but >> potentially others down the track) and was wondering whether you'd had >> any thoughts about how we might share that code? Off the top of my >> head I see a few options: >> >> 1. We depend on the searchlight-ui as a Horizon requirement; this is >> pretty unlikely to happen (depending on any optional panel means it's >> not really optional any longer ;-) >> 2. We copy the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon; this is pretty > terrible. >> 3. We move the code from searchlight-ui into a separate project that >> both Horizon and searchlight-ui depend upon; this could be made to >> work, though it's Yet Another Project. >> 4. We move the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon. I think this is >> most likely to work. >> >> What are your thoughts? Have I missed an option in this list that you >> think is a better one? Have I missed the mark in my analysis of the >> options I've presented? >> >> >> Richard >> >> > __ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >__ >OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > >__ >OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
Let me get Matt B in on this discussion, but basically, option 4 is my initial feeling as Rob stated. One downside we saw with this approach is that we weren’t going to be able to take advantage of searchlight capabilities in details pages if everything was in native horizon. Although, I suppose that could be done by using the hz-if-services directive [0] if horizon will allow searchlight optimized code to be in the horizon repo. [0] https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/static/app/core/cloud-services/hz-if-services.directive.js -Travis On 3/9/17, 5:09 AM, "Rob Cresswell (rcresswe)" wrote: I tried searching the meeting logs but couldn’t find where we discussed this in the Searchlight meeting. The conclusion at the time was option 4 IIRC. The main thing is to make sure we get it done within one cycle, even if it isn’t default. this means searchlight-ui doesn’t have to carry some horrible workarounds and can just remove the code from their repo. Basically; start putting the code in the Horizon repo, and when its done, Searchlight-UI can remove it from their repo. Rob > On 9 Mar 2017, at 04:22, Richard Jones wrote: > > Hi Searchlight and Horizon folks, > > I'd like to re-use the wonderful resource type code from > searchlight-ui (in particular os-nova-servers right now but > potentially others down the track) and was wondering whether you'd had > any thoughts about how we might share that code? Off the top of my > head I see a few options: > > 1. We depend on the searchlight-ui as a Horizon requirement; this is > pretty unlikely to happen (depending on any optional panel means it's > not really optional any longer ;-) > 2. We copy the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon; this is pretty terrible. > 3. We move the code from searchlight-ui into a separate project that > both Horizon and searchlight-ui depend upon; this could be made to > work, though it's Yet Another Project. > 4. We move the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon. I think this is > most likely to work. > > What are your thoughts? Have I missed an option in this list that you > think is a better one? Have I missed the mark in my analysis of the > options I've presented? > > > Richard > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
I tried searching the meeting logs but couldn’t find where we discussed this in the Searchlight meeting. The conclusion at the time was option 4 IIRC. The main thing is to make sure we get it done within one cycle, even if it isn’t default. this means searchlight-ui doesn’t have to carry some horrible workarounds and can just remove the code from their repo. Basically; start putting the code in the Horizon repo, and when its done, Searchlight-UI can remove it from their repo. Rob > On 9 Mar 2017, at 04:22, Richard Jones wrote: > > Hi Searchlight and Horizon folks, > > I'd like to re-use the wonderful resource type code from > searchlight-ui (in particular os-nova-servers right now but > potentially others down the track) and was wondering whether you'd had > any thoughts about how we might share that code? Off the top of my > head I see a few options: > > 1. We depend on the searchlight-ui as a Horizon requirement; this is > pretty unlikely to happen (depending on any optional panel means it's > not really optional any longer ;-) > 2. We copy the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon; this is pretty terrible. > 3. We move the code from searchlight-ui into a separate project that > both Horizon and searchlight-ui depend upon; this could be made to > work, though it's Yet Another Project. > 4. We move the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon. I think this is > most likely to work. > > What are your thoughts? Have I missed an option in this list that you > think is a better one? Have I missed the mark in my analysis of the > options I've presented? > > > Richard > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type implementations
Hi Searchlight and Horizon folks, I'd like to re-use the wonderful resource type code from searchlight-ui (in particular os-nova-servers right now but potentially others down the track) and was wondering whether you'd had any thoughts about how we might share that code? Off the top of my head I see a few options: 1. We depend on the searchlight-ui as a Horizon requirement; this is pretty unlikely to happen (depending on any optional panel means it's not really optional any longer ;-) 2. We copy the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon; this is pretty terrible. 3. We move the code from searchlight-ui into a separate project that both Horizon and searchlight-ui depend upon; this could be made to work, though it's Yet Another Project. 4. We move the code from searchlight-ui into Horizon. I think this is most likely to work. What are your thoughts? Have I missed an option in this list that you think is a better one? Have I missed the mark in my analysis of the options I've presented? Richard __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev