Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

On 19 November 2015 at 09:25, Brad P. Crochet wrote: > I have pushed up a draft of the spec. Let's move comments there. > > I tried to incorporate as much as I could from the discussion here. > There was a lot of disjointed suggestions and was a bit difficult to > follow. So

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

I have pushed up a draft of the spec. Let's move comments there. I tried to incorporate as much as I could from the discussion here. There was a lot of disjointed suggestions and was a bit difficult to follow. So I've taken what I can. It can be refined in the spec itself.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

I think all the filtering etc that exists on the current CLI should move over to OSC, I personally find things like --fields super useful. +1 to removing "chassis show --nodes" and making it part of node list. +1 to deploy, instead of activate. Jim also suggested provision. WDYT? I'd only

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:19:08PM +, Sam Betts (sambetts) wrote: > So you would end up with a set of commands that look like this: After reading through this thread, I think this is mostly good, other than some word choices. I've changed a few inline to feel more natural (IMHO of course). :)

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

t;> Openstack baremetal abort UUID >> >> And for power: >> >> Openstack baremetal boot UUID >> Openstack beremetal shutdown UUID >> Openstack baremetal reboot UUID >> >> WDYT? >> >> Sam >> >> From: "Haomeng, Wan

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Steve Martinelli wrote: > > So I don't know the intricacies of the baremetal APIs, but hopefully I can > shed some light on best practices. > > Do try to reuse the existing actions >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

ts)" ---2015/11/10 07:20:54 AM---So you would end up with a set of commands that look like this: Openstack baremetal [node/driver/cha From: "Sam Betts (sambetts)" <sambe...@cisco.com> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage que

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > inspect, manage, provide, active and abort are all provisioning verbs > used in ironic API. they usually represent some complex operations on a > node. Inspection is not related to showing, it's about fetching

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

On 11/10/2015 05:14 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Dmitry Tantsur > wrote: inspect, manage, provide, active and abort are all provisioning verbs used in ironic API. they usually represent some complex

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: >> >> inspect, manage, provide, active and abort are all provisioning verbs >> used in ironic API. they usually represent some complex operations

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Sam Betts (sambetts) wrote: > So you would end up with a set of commands that look like this: > > Openstack baremetal [node/driver/chassis] list > Openstack baremetal port list [—node uuid] <— replicate node-port-list > > Openstack baremetal

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

On 11/10/2015 10:28 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote: Hi, Let's have a quick poll, which would you prefer and why: 1. openstack baremetal provision state --provide UUID 2. openstack baremetal provision --provide UUID 3. openstack baremetal provide UUID 4. openstack baremetal set provision state

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

> It's still not 100% consistent, "power" is a noun, "provision" is a verb. > Not sure it matters, though, adding OSC folks so that they can weigh in. > "provision" can also be a noun [1]. But since the OSC syntax suggest having a verb we could have something like: $ openstack baremetal set

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

Hi, I like the last variant by Lucas, and agree we need to ensure the CLI interface is consistent between power and provision commands. Best regards, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:00 PM Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote: > > It's still not 100% consistent, "power" is a noun,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action How about below format? #openstack baremeta

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

How about below format? #openstack baremetal Example: #openstack baremetal provision provide #openstack baremetal power on/off I think it is easy to understand and remember:) On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy < pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hi, > I like

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

> > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2015 10:49 > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@lists.opensta

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

etts)" <sambe...@cisco.com> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: 2015/11/10 07:20 AM Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient c

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

0 November 2015 11:41 To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action Hi

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] [OSC] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

g List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2015 11:41 > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic]