From: Yujun Zhang
Date: Monday, 5 September 2016 at 13:14
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:49 PM Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL)
mailto:ifat.a...@nokia.com>> wrote:
From: Yujun Zhang
Date: Friday, 2 September 2016 at 08:47
...
Cool.
Just please note that you can’t push it to master at the moment, as we are in
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:49 PM Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL)
wrote:
>
> From: Yujun Zhang
> Date: Friday, 2 September 2016 at 08:47
> ...
> Cool.
> Just please note that you can’t push it to master at the moment, as we are
> in feature freeze. Once stable/newton is created we will be able to start
> us
From: Yujun Zhang
Date: Friday, 2 September 2016 at 08:47
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL)
mailto:ifat.a...@nokia.com>> wrote:
I think you have a point. We can indeed use the templates definitions for the
static datasources as well.
If agreed by the team, I will get start
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:44 AM Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL)
wrote:
> I think you have a point. We can indeed use the templates definitions for
> the static datasources as well.
>
If agreed by the team, I will get started to implement it.
@all, please share your opinions. All your comments are welcom
.
Best Regards,
Ifat.
From: Yujun Zhang
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Thursday, 1 September 2016 at 05:51
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage]
t is the problem you are running into with mock_sync?
>
> Elisha
>
>
>
> *From:* Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2016 5:09 AM
>
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [op
Hi, Ifat,
The static configuration contains definitions of `entities` and *their*
`relationships while the scenario templates contains a definition section
which includes `entities` and `relationships` *between them*. An outline of
these two format are as below.
static configuration
- entities
Hi Yujun,
From: Yujun Zhang
Date: Monday, 29 August 2016 at 11:59
entities:
- type: switch
name: switch-1
id: switch-1 # should be same as name
state: available
relationships:
- type: nova.host
name: host-1
id: host-1 # should be same as name
is_source: true
isha
From: Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 9:59 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] relationship_type in static_datasources
I added a new key 'is_source' to static physical c
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] relationship_type in
> static_datasources
>
>
>
> Patch work in progress [1] but local test fails [2].
>
>
>
> It seems to be caused by the mock_sync.
>
pment Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] relationship_type in static_datasources
Lost in the code...It seems the datasource just construct the entities and send
them over event bus to entity graph processor. I need to dig further to find
out the
the new definition from the yaml
>> file here to decide the edge direction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it ok?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2016 4:22 AM
>>
>>
>>
t 26, 2016 4:22 AM
>
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] relationship_type in
> static_datasources
>
>
>
> Lost in the code...It seems the datasource just construct the entities and
> send them
Thanks for replying. See my comments inline.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:02 PM Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL)
wrote:
> Hi Yujun,
>
> Regarding the validation – I agree that we should implement it in another
> way, but as a first stage I think you can just remove it.
>
OK
> If you have some thoughts re
decide the edge direction.
Is it ok?
From: Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 4:22 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] relationship_type in static_datasources
Lost in the code...It
> Alexey
>
>
>
> *From:* Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:50 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] relationship_type in
> static_datasources
>
>
>
&
Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] relationship_type in static_datasources
Hi, Ifat,
I searched for edge_labels in the project. It seems it is validated only in
`vitrage/evaluator/template_validation/template_syntax_validator.py`. Where is
such restriction
Hi, Ifat,
I searched for edge_labels in the project. It seems it is validated only in
`vitrage/evaluator/template_validation/template_syntax_validator.py`. Where
is such restriction applied in static_datasources?
--
Yujun
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:19 PM Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL)
wrote:
> Hi Yuju
Hi Yujun,
Indeed, we have some restrictions on the relationship types that can be used in
the static datasources. I think we should remove these restrictions, and allow
any kind of relationship type.
Best regards,
Ifat.
From: Yujun Zhang
Date: Monday, 22 August 2016 at 08:37
I'm following the
I'm following the sample configuration in docs [1] to verify how static
datasources works.
It seems `backup` relationship is not displayed in the entity graph view
and neither is it included in topology show.
There is an enumeration for edge labels [2]. Should relationship in static
datasource be
20 matches
Mail list logo