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/
t; 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
rdj0...@gmail.com>
> > Date: 3/9/17 21:13 (GMT-06:00)
> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource
iginal message
> From: Richard Jones <r1chardj0...@gmail.com>
> Date: 3/9/17 21:13 (GMT-06:00)
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [H
GMT-06:00)
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight] Sharing resource type
> implementations
>
> Hey folks,
>
> Another potential
against it.
Original message
From: Richard Jones <r1chardj0...@gmail.com>
Date: 3/9/17 21:13 (GMT-06:00)
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Horizon][searchlight]
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
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,
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo