Re: [ovirt-devel] propose Alona Kaplan as a Backend Maintainer
+1 Good luck! Regards, Mike - Original Message - > Hi All, > > Alona Kaplan has been working on the oVirt project for over 2.5 years. > At the beginning Alona's focus was on the UI aspect of the project, she > did a great Job contributing many features, bug fixes and documentation > enhancements across the UI, she became a UI maintainer. > > In the last year Alona also contributed a lot of code to the backend > side of the project, the code was focused on the network side and > included end to end features. > > To share some of Alona's great stats - > ~ 115 patches related to the network backend > ~ 300 patches for UI > > She coded 'migration-network', 'network-linking' and lately 'support in > different VLAN names' end to end. > > I would like to thank Alona for her great contribution and hope for many > more patches to come :) > > I would also like to propose Alona as a Network backend maintainer. > > > Thanks, Livnat > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[ovirt-devel] Hide automatic comments in Gerrit
Hi, I've written a Greasemonkey script to hide bot comments (Jenkins, automation, etc) on the review pages: https://gist.github.com/mkolesni/abaedba07d820df6352c It adds a button "Hide automatic comments" in the comments section menu. There's also an AUTO_HIDE option so that the bot comments are hidden automatically when the review page loads. I've set it to true, but you can disable it if you don't need it. Enjoy! (And if there's bugs, fix them ;)) Regards, Mike ___ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[ovirt-devel] Removing boilerplate code in engine
Hi,
I recently introduced 2 changes for removing boilerplate code:
1. http://gerrit.ovirt.org/29414 - Fluent syntax for writing validations
2. http://gerrit.ovirt.org/29617 - Wrapper for locks to use with
try-with-resources
By removing boilerplate code we're making the code less error prone and easier
to read (and maintain).
I've already sent some simple refactors to use these new styles of writing,
but more work is necessary to apply to the whole project.
I urge all engine developers that need to write such code to use the new styles
of writing.
Below are examples for each change.
1. When expecting a negative outcome, instead of using:
return getVds() == null
? new ValidationResult(VdcBllMessages.ACTION_TYPE_FAILED_HOST_NOT_EXIST)
: ValidationResult.VALID;
use:
return
ValidationResult.failWith(VdcBllMessages.ACTION_TYPE_FAILED_HOST_NOT_EXIST)
.when(getVds() == null);
When expecting a positive outcome, instead of using:
return
FeatureSupported.nonVmNetwork(getDataCenter().getcompatibility_version())
? ValidationResult.VALID
: new
ValidationResult(VdcBllMessages.NON_VM_NETWORK_NOT_SUPPORTED_FOR_POOL_LEVEL);
use:
return
ValidationResult.failWith(VdcBllMessages.NON_VM_NETWORK_NOT_SUPPORTED_FOR_POOL_LEVEL)
.unless(FeatureSupported.nonVmNetwork(getDataCenter().getcompatibility_version()));
2. To lock a block of code, instead of using [1]:
lock.lock();
try {
// Thread safe code
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
use:
try (AutoCloseableLock l = new AutoCloseableLock(lock)) {
// Thread safe code
}
[1] This is best used with locks from java.util.concurrent.locks package.
For regular thread safe blocks it's best to use the standard synchronized
block.
Regards,
Mike
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ovirt-devel] commons-collections v4.0
- Original Message - > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" , "Mike Kolesnik" > > > > Cc: devel@ovirt.org > > Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 1:11:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] commons-collections v4.0 > > > > On the other hand, changing a jar in the runtime environment without > > compiling and running test with the new jar could lead an application to > > stop functioning in a customer environment. > > Also not every bug found in a dependency jar would cause a problem in the > > application. (An application might not use the problematic part of the > > dependency.) > > I'd better trust the test suite (automatic and manual) that we run on the > > compiled application with all the dependencies that the developers choose > > at > > the development time and then deliver that (with its dependencies as a > > single package) to the customers. > > Every bug in a dependency should be evaluated within the given application > > scope and only if proven as the given application problem only then the > > application should be released. > > So what you basically claim is that java developers and technology is not > mature enough to keep backward compatibility, so each java developer should > freeze a snapshot in time for his application to work. > > I truly hope this is not the case. There can always be regressions as you're well aware, and I don't know but usually people who develop the libraries are not Einstein so yes, they do break backwards compatibility on occasions, sometimes even on purpose (deprecation). > > And for addressing your claim explicitly, what you can test at single point > in time, does not mean that it is definite as well, at customer site bugs > may be found also in the packages that you do test. Well, when you test on site by dev & qa you make sure you send something to the customer - X. When the dependencies are updated out of band, the customer actually is using X'. I can see at least 2 things wrong here: 1. You're putting the customer in a position of a tester for the X' application. 2. If customer finds a bug he actually found it on X', whereas the developer who would be assigned to the bug could be using X'' by now. If you're so keen on packaging a jar outside WAR file, we need to specify explicit version and not >=. > > > > > > > Sent from Samsung Mobile > > > > ---- Original message > > From: Alon Bar-Lev > > Date: 07/05/2014 21:41 (GMT+02:00) > > To: Mike Kolesnik > > Cc: Yevgeny Zaspitsky ,devel@ovirt.org > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] commons-collections v4.0 > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Mike Kolesnik" > > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" > > > Cc: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" , devel@ovirt.org > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 9:34:03 PM > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] commons-collections v4.0 > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" > > > > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" > > > > > Cc: devel@ovirt.org > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:39:11 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] commons-collections v4.0 > > > > > > > > > > That means that we manage 2 separate environments: > > > > > 1. Development - relies on pom files. E.g. unit tests run with > > > > > commons-collections v3.1 (and when I add v4.0) and succeed. > > > > > > > > devenv will use runtime option. > > > > you are right about the unit tests, these relays on the poms. > > > > > > I use devenv and it always uses the dev option not the runtime. > > > So basically developers are using the pom specified versions and not what > > > used in runtime. > > > > > > Even more so, in runtime it highly depends on what OS you're using, so > > > someone > > > developing on F19 might not be using same versions as a developer on F20 > > > and > > > both are probably very different versions than on RHEL/CentOS. > > > I won't even mention other OS`s. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Run-time - relies on JBoss own dependencies that bring > > > > > commons-collection > > > > > v3.2.1-redhat-2. > > > > > >
Re: [ovirt-devel] commons-collections v4.0
- Original Message - > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" > > Cc: devel@ovirt.org > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:39:11 AM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] commons-collections v4.0 > > > > That means that we manage 2 separate environments: > > 1. Development - relies on pom files. E.g. unit tests run with > > commons-collections v3.1 (and when I add v4.0) and succeed. > > devenv will use runtime option. > you are right about the unit tests, these relays on the poms. I use devenv and it always uses the dev option not the runtime. So basically developers are using the pom specified versions and not what used in runtime. Even more so, in runtime it highly depends on what OS you're using, so someone developing on F19 might not be using same versions as a developer on F20 and both are probably very different versions than on RHEL/CentOS. I won't even mention other OS`s. > > > 2. Run-time - relies on JBoss own dependencies that bring > > commons-collection > > v3.2.1-redhat-2. > > in rhel case, yes. > > > This kind of discrepancies might be found in other libraries as we do not > > synchronize our pom files with the JBoss current version dependencies. > > IMHO that could lead to some very difficult bugs that we won't be able to > > simulate in our unit tests. > > correct, but the java way to pull dependencies at will without being able to > fix z-stream using central package management tools is more severe than unit > tests not working/not working. > > for example, your application uses x.jar and actually delivers x.jar... so > from release to eternity it is your responsibility to track x.jar for severe > stability bugs and security bugs, and release your entire application each > time found, now multiple it with the # of components application is using > and see how much effort you have just to maintain stability and security if > you embed 3rd party components without your application. Yes, if you use package X then you're using that specific version with it's behaviour and API, this is why dependencies aren't updated light headedly but with testing to see that nothing broke (since stuff does break, even in minor version, as we leave in a not so perfect world). > > > Why do we avoid "to maintain our own packaging"? IMHO Ovirt own > > dependencies > > could be packed in the war, can't they? > > yes they could, but this is not suitable for enterprise grade > implementations, mainly per what I described above. Sorry but AFAIK enterprise grade software release fixes for their software on a timely basis and have processes in place to manage upgrades of functionality. What currently is done is relying on courtesy of other people to release a "fix" that already exists a long time. And of course, as I mentioned, the application needs to be tested with the updated library. IMO neglecting this and leaving this out of band for "enterprise grade" software is much worse than actually testing to see that it is working and just leaving it all to chance. > > Regards, > Alon > > > Best regards, > > > > Yevgeny Zaspitsky > > Senior Software Engineer > > Red Hat Israel > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Alon Bar-Lev" > > To: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" > > Cc: devel@ovirt.org > > Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 7:22:18 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] commons-collections v4.0 > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" > > > To: devel@ovirt.org > > > Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 7:13:10 PM > > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] commons-collections v4.0 > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I'd like to add the new version (4.0) of Apache commons-collections > > > library > > > to the dependencies of the project (we use 3.1 currently). > > > The new version uses the generics features of Java 5 so that make the > > > code > > > more type safe. You can find the full list of changes on > > > https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-collections/release_4_0.html. > > > The new API is based on the original but it isn't fully compatible with > > > it. > > > So in order to make the migration to the new API easier, the package has > > > been changed to org.apache.commons.collections4. That allows having both > > > version of the library in the classpath at the starting point and move > > > (refactor) towards the new version gradually. > > > > > > I have couple of questions regarding the new dependency: > > > 1. Is there anything that could prevent adding the new dependency? > > > > We try to avoid introducing our own dependencies, in this case we use > > whatever jboss provides which is very comfortable as we do not need to > > maintain our own packaging. > > > > Currently the jbeap does not provide 4.0, it does support 3.2.1-redhat-2, > > so > > better to avoid this until we switch to more recent version of jboss. > > > > Alternatively we could enjoy standalone rpm within rhel/centos if > > avail
Re: [ovirt-devel] Adjust engine to support arbitrary vlan device name
Very nice feature page. I think in UX you can add the VLAN tag in the VLAN column in the Network Interfaces sub tab under Host. Also from REST perspective you should allow to send the base interface for Setup Networks action, to explicitly specify which interface you're adding the network on, istead of relying on the interface name to implicitly state it. Regards, Mike - Original Message - > Hi all, > > This refactoring is targeted to 3.5. > > Please review the feature page and share your thoughts: > > http://www.ovirt.org/Feature/ArbitraryVlanDeviceName > > Thanks, > Alona > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
