To try and keep this conversation moving forward, is it safe to say that we
at least need to change the current status attribute to something like
action_status? And the same with status_reason being changed to
action_status_reason? Does anybody see a reason why we shouldn't go this
way, since it's really what status currently refers to?
2013/12/8 Mitsuru Kanabuchi kanabuchi.mits...@po.ntts.co.jp
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 22:13:18 -0600
Christopher Armstrong chris.armstr...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Randall Burt randall.b...@rackspace.com
wrote:
On Dec 5, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Christopher Armstrong
chris.armstr...@rackspace.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Anderson Mesquita
anderson...@thoughtworks.com wrote:
Hey stackers,
We've been working towards making stack convergence (
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/stack-convergence) one
step
closer to being ready at a time. After the first patch was submitted
we
got positive feedback on it as well as some good suggestions as to
how to
move it forward.
The first step (
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/stack-check)
is to get all the statuses back from the real world resources and
update
our stacks accordingly so that we'll be able to move on to the next
step:
converge it to the desired state, fixing any errors that may have
happened.
We just submitted another WiP for review, and as we were doing it, a
few
questions were raised and we'd like to get everybody's input on them.
Our
main concern is around the use and purpose of the `status` of a
stack/resource. `status` currently appears to represent the status
of the
last action taken, and it seems that we may need to repurpose it or
possibly create something else to represent a stack's health (i.e.
everything is up and running as expected, something smells fishy,
something
broke, stack's is doomed). We described this thoroughly here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/heat-convergence
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
I think a lot of OpenStack projects use status fields as status of
the most recent operation, and I think it's totally wrong. status
should
be a known state of the _object_, not an action, and if we need
statuses
for operations, then those operations should be addressable REST
objects.
Of course there are cases where object status should be updated to
reflect
an operating status if it's a completely exclusive operation (BUILDING
and
DELETING make sense, for example).
Actually, I think most projects are the opposite where status means
what's the state of the resource (Nova, Trove, Cinder, etc), whereas
Heat
uses status as the state of the last operation. Probably wouldn't be
too
terrible to have a new state for stacks and their resources then
perhaps
deprecate and use status in the accepted way in the v2 API?
Well, my point is that it's done inconsistently. Yes, it's mostly used as
an object status, but nova for example uses it as an operation status for
things like resize.
Nova's status of in resize is RESIZE and VERITY_RESIZE.
This status means Currently, Instance is ACTIVE and resize in progress.
I think Heat can assume resource status is ACTIVE in this case.
Thus, several status that contain operation status have to map
resource(object)
status. However in my impression, a status that should assume another
status
isn't a lot.
In my opinion, status mapping table is reasonable in present time.
Regards
--
Mitsuru Kanabuchi
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
