Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron extenstions

Hi Doug, On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:01:54 -0600 Doug Wiegley wrote: > Hi Gary, > > First I’m seeing these, but I don’t see that they’re required on > input, unless I’m mis-reading those reviews. Additional of new > output fields to a json object, or adding optional inputs, is not > generally consi

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need API extensions for new API functionality?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:52:14PM +1030, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > > On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:14:21 -0400 > > Sean Dague wrote: > > > > > On 03/09/2015 03:37 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > > > On 03/08/201

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] what is our shipped paste.ini going to be for Kilo

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:15:50 -0400 Sean Dague wrote: > Our current top level shipped example paste.ini for Nova includes the > following set of endpoint definitions: > > [composite:osapi_compute] > use = call:nova.api.openstack.urlmap:urlmap_factory > /: oscomputeversions > /v1.1: openstack_comp

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] what is our shipped paste.ini going to be for Kilo

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:56:27 +1300 Robert Collins wrote: > On 17 March 2015 at 14:27, Ken'ichi Ohmichi > wrote: > > >> I am worried about SDKs making requests that have additional JSON > >> attributes that were previously ignored by v2, but will be > >> considered invalid by the v2.1 validation

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] what is our shipped paste.ini going to be for Kilo

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:22:12 -0400 Russell Bryant wrote: > On 03/16/2015 11:08 AM, John Garbutt wrote: > > While its not under Nova's control, I think we need to consider the > > keystone catalog here. > > > > It feels nice to have an explicit entry for v2.1, that people start > > using once the

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] is it possible to microversion a static class method?

So ultimately I think this is a style issue rather than a technical one. I think there are situations where one way looks clearer than another the other way does. Sorry I can't get around to putting up a couple of examples, ATM but to be clear there is no difference in the end result (no different

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] how safe is it to change NoAuthMiddlewareBase?

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:51:27 -0700 Jay Pipes wrote: > On 02/26/2015 04:27 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > In trying to move the flavor manage negative tests out of Tempest > > and into the Nova functional tree, I ran into one set of tests > > which are permissions checking. Basically that a regular use

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] need input on possible API change for bug #1420848

the V2 API code asap anyway. You can after all request a version number of a per method basis as long as you are talking to v2.1. So the only forced upgrade is the v2->v2.1 transition and those apis should be identical On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > > > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] need input on possible API change for bug #1420848

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:32:11 -0600 > Chris Friesen wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm working on bug #1420848 which addresses the issue that doing a > > "service-disable" followed b

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need API extensions for new API functionality?

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:14:21 -0400 Sean Dague wrote: > On 03/09/2015 03:37 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote: > >> Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and > >> document it, that will be great for guiding developer how to add > >> new API. > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need API extensions for new API functionality?

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:08 PM, John Garbutt wrote: > +1 > > Please could you submit a dev ref for this? > > We can argue on the review, a bit like this one: > > https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/doc/source/devref/policy_enforcement.rst > > I think it'd also be a good idea to add a t

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need API extensions for new API functionality?

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:08 PM, John Garbutt wrote: > Hi, > > I think I agree with Jay here, but let me explain... > > On 8 March 2015 at 12:10, Alex Xu wrote: > > Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and document > it, > > that will be great for guiding developer how to

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need API extensions for new API functionality?

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 03/07/2015 07:31 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > Hi Stackers, > > > > Now that microversions have been introduced to the Nova API (meaning we > > can now have novaclient request, say, version 2.3 of the Nova API using > > the special X-OpenStack-Nov

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need API extensions for new API functionality?

Hi, Apologies for the slow reply, long weekend because of a public holiday over here. I'm probably going to end up repeating part of what Alex has mentioned as well. So the first thing I think we want to distinguish between plugins being a REST API user or operator concept and it being a tool de

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] what's the merge plan for current proposed microversions?

at they think would work well, please let us know! Regards, Chris Best regards, > Alex Levine > > > On 3/4/15 11:44 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:28:34 -0500 >> Sean Dague wrote: >> >> On 03/03/2015 10:24 AM, Claudiu Belu wrote: >&

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] what's the merge plan for current proposed microversions?

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:28:34 -0500 Sean Dague wrote: > On 03/03/2015 10:24 AM, Claudiu Belu wrote: > > Hello. > > > > I've talked with Christopher Yeoh yesterday and I've asked him > > about the microversions and when will they be able to merge. He > >

[openstack-dev] [nova] Temporary freeze on API changes

Hi, The Nova API subgroup is planning on releasing V2.1 on Monday (changing its status from experimental to CURRENT) and merging the first patch which uses microversions on top of 2.1 on the Wednesday. In the meantime we'd appreciate it if reviewers did not +A any patchset which changes the REST

[openstack-dev] [nova] Nova API meeting

Hi, Just a reminder that the weekly Nova API meeting is being held tomorrow Friday UTC . We encourage cloud operators and those who use the REST API such as SDK developers and others who and are interested in the future of the API to participate. In other timezones the meeting is at: EST 2

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Outcome of the nova FFE meeting for Kilo

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > On 2/16/2015 9:57 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > >> Hi Mikal, sorry for top-posting. What was the final decision regarding >> the instance tagging work? >> >> Thanks, >> -jay >> >> On 02/16/2015 09:44 PM, Michael Still wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Feature Freeze Exception request for x509 keypairs

nal reverter Johannes Erdfelt > gave his +1, currently the commit has a +2. > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150800/ > > [2] Nova-API change: It uses the microversioning API and it has been > decided to be the first microversioning commit, since it is closest to > merge.

[openstack-dev] [nova] Nova API meeting

Hi, Just a reminder that the weekly Nova API meeting is being held tomorrow Friday UTC . We encourage cloud operators and those who use the REST API such as SDK developers and others who and are interested in the future of the API to participate. In other timezones the meeting is at: EST 2

Re: [openstack-dev] Cross-Repo Dependencies in Zuul

Wow, this is great! Thank you! Chris On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:56 AM, James E. Blair wrote: > Hi, > > We have added support for cross-repo dependencies (CRD) in Zuul. The > important bits: > > * To use them, include "Depends-On: " in the footer of > your commit message. Use the full Change-

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] will the real v2.1/v3 API status please stand up?

Hi, On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > I'm not going to hide it, I don't know what's going on with the v2.1 API > status, i.e. what is the criteria to that thing dropping it's > 'experimental' label? > > So I caught up with Matt on IRC, repeating some references and discussi

Re: [openstack-dev] [python-novaclient][nova] future of --os-compute-api-version option and whole api versioning

ch specifies the version used - which you may nto have exactly known on the request if you didn't specify a version (eg not specified or 'latest') Regards, Chris > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Andrey Kurilin > wrote: > >> Thanks for the summary, I'll

Re: [openstack-dev] [api][nova] Openstack HTTP error codes

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 01/29/2015 12:41 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > >> Correct. This actually came up at the Nova mid cycle in a side >> conversation with Ironic and Neutron folks. >> >> HTTP error codes are not sufficiently granular to describe what happens >> when a R

Re: [openstack-dev] [python-novaclient][nova] future of --os-compute-api-version option and whole api versioning

eturned Regards, Chris > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Christopher Yeoh > wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:51:54 +0200 >> Andrey Kurilin wrote: >> >> > Hi everyone! >> > After removing nova V3 API from novaclient[1], implementation of v1.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Product] [all][log] Openstack HTTP error codes

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 01/31/2015 05:24 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > Hi > > > > This discussion came up at the cinder mid-cycle last week too, > > specifically in the context of 'Can we change the details text in an > > existing error, or is that an unacceptable AP

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] novaclient support for V2.1 micro versions

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:53:55 + "Day, Phil" wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Is there any support yet in novaclient for requesting a specific > microversion ? (looking at the final leg of extending > clean-shutdown to the API, and wondering how to test this in devstack > via the novaclient) > No, s

Re: [openstack-dev] [python-novaclient][nova] future of --os-compute-api-version option and whole api versioning

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:51:54 +0200 Andrey Kurilin wrote: > Hi everyone! > After removing nova V3 API from novaclient[1], implementation of v1.1 > client is used for v1.1, v2 and v3 [2]. > Since we moving to micro versions, I wonder, do we need such > mechanism of choosing api version(os-compute-a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Questions on pep8 F811 hacking check for microversion

On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:31:19 -0500 Jay Pipes wrote: > On 01/06/2015 06:25 AM, Chen CH Ji wrote: > > Based on nova-specs api-microversions.rst > > we support following function definition format, but it violate the > > hacking rule pep8 F811 because duplicate function definition > > we should use

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] [nova] [glance] Consistency in client side sorting

On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:10:41 -0500 Jay Pipes wrote: > > > > Thoughts on getting consistency across all 3 projects (and possibly > > others)? > > Yeah, I personally like the second option as well, but agree that > consistency is the key (pun intended) here. > > I would say let's make a decision

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Nominating Melanie Witt for python-novaclient-core

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Michael Still wrote: > Greetings, > > I would like to nominate Melanie Witt for the python-novaclient-core team. > > (What is python-novaclient-core? Its a new group which will contain > all of nova-core as well as anyone else we think should have core > reviewer

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Complexity check and v2 API

Hi, Given the timing (no spec approved) it sounds like a v2.1 plus microversions (just merging) with no v2 changes at all. The v2.1 framework is more flexible and you should need no changes to servers.py at all as there are hooks for adding extra parameters in separate plugins. There are examples

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

So I think this is something we really should get agreement on across the open stack API first before flipping back and forth on a case by case basis. Personally I think we should be using uuids for uniqueness and leave any extra restrictions to a ui layer if really required. If we try to have nam

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] How to delete a VM which is in ERROR state?

If force delete doesn't work please do submit the bug report along with as much of the relevant nova logs as you can. Even better if it's easily repeatable with devstack. Chris On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 at 8:43 am, pcrews wrote: > On 12/09/2014 03:54 PM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This ca

Re: [openstack-dev] [python-novaclient] Status of novaclient V3

th implemented code of novaclient V3 ? Should it be >> ported to novaclient V2.1 or it can be removed? > > I think it can be removed, as we are not going forward with the V3 API. But I > will defer to Christopher Yeoh/Ken’ichi Ohmichi for the details. I think it can all j

Re: [openstack-dev] [QA][Tempest] Proposing Ghanshyam Mann for Tempest Core

+1 Sent from my iPad > On 22 Nov 2014, at 4:56 am, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > Hi Everyone, > > I'd like to propose we add Ghanshyam Mann (gmann) to the tempest core team. > Over > the past couple of cycles Ghanshyam has been actively engaged in the Tempest > community. Ghanshyam has had o

[openstack-dev] [nova] Nova API meeting

Hi, Just a reminder that the weekly Nova API meeting is being held tomorrow Friday UTC . We encourage cloud operators and those who use the REST API such as SDK developers and others who and are interested in the future of the API to participate. In other timezones the meeting is at: EST 2

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Counting resources

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:47:16 +0100 Salvatore Orlando wrote: > Aloha guardians of the API! > > I haven recently* reviewed a spec for neutron [1] proposing a > distinct URI for returning resource count on list operations. > This proposal is for selected neutron resources, but I believe the > topic

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] API-WG meeting (note time change this week)

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 19:34:44 + Everett Toews wrote: > > 2. Do you know if there is a way to subscribe to only the API WG > meeting from that calendar? I haven't been able to find a way to do that. Fortunately for me most of the openstack meetings end up being between 12am and 8am so it doesn

[openstack-dev] [api] API-WG meeting (note time change this week)

Hi, We have moved to alternating times each week for the API WG meeting so people from other timezones can attend. Since this is an odd week the meeting will be Thursday UTC 1600. Details here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG The google ical feed hasn't been updated yet, but tha

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Do we need to add xml support for new API extensions on v2 API ?

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:11:40 +0800 Chen CH Ji wrote: > > Hi > I saw we are removing v2 XML support proposed > several days before > > For new api extensions, do we need to add it now and > remove it later or only support JSON ? Thanks I don't think any api add

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] policy on old / virtually abandoned patches

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 11/18/2014 07:29 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 07:06:59AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote: >> >>> Nova currently has 197 patches that have seen no activity in the last 4 >>> weeks (project:openstack/nova age:4weeks statu

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] fix latency on requirements breakage

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > waiting extra long for valid test results. People don't realize their > code can't pass and just keep pushing patches up consuming resources > which means that parts of the project that could pass tests, is backed > up behind 100% guarunteed fa

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] v2 or v3 for new api

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Pasquale Porreca < pasquale.porr...@dektech.com.au> wrote: > Thank you very much Christopher > > On 11/17/14 12:15, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > >> Yes, sorry documentation has been on our todo list for too long. Could I >> get you to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] v2 or v3 for new api

> In particular I noticed I had to modify the file > nova/nova.egg-info/entry_points.txt to make my v3 api to load, but this > file seems not to be under versioning, is this file modified only after the > changes are merged? > > > On 11/16/14 23:55, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Cross-Project Liaison for the API Working Group

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Everett Toews wrote: > On Nov 14, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > > On 11/14/2014 05:13 PM, Everett Toews wrote: > >> The liaison should be a core reviewer for the project, but does not > >> need to be the PTL. By default, the liaison will be the PTL. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] v2 or v3 for new api

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Pasquale Porreca < pasquale.porr...@dektech.com.au> wrote: > Hello > > I am working on an api for a new feature in nova, but I am wondering what > is the correct way to add a new extension: should it be supported by v2, v3 > or both? > > You need now to have at le

[openstack-dev] [api] API WG Meeting

Hi, The patch setting the time for the API Working Group meeting has merged: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128332/ The time for the meeting is Thursday UTC In other timezones the meeting is at: EST 20:00 (Wed) Japan 09:00 (Thu) China 08:00 (Thu) ACDT 10:30 (Thu) The meeting details

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] API Workgroup git repository

sure if we'll be squeezing one in before summit or not. The proposed meeting time patch only just recently merged (Thursdays UTC ) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128332/2 so perhaps thats why its not there yet. Chris > Shaunak > > On Oct 22, 2014, at 10:39 PM, Christopher Yeoh >

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] API Workgroup git repository

setup work in the repository is getting approved by Jay or I if it looks reasonable. Chris > Shaunak > > On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 20:36:27 + > > Everett Toews wrote: > > > >> I notice at the to

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] API Workgroup git repository

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 20:36:27 + Everett Toews wrote: > I notice at the top of the GitHub mirror page [1] it reads, "API > Working Group http://openstack.org” > > Can we get that changed to "API Working Group > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/API_Working_Group”? > > That URL would be much mor

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] API Workgroup git repository

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:44:26 -0500 Anne Gentle wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Steve Martinelli > wrote: > > > we could set up a job to publish under docs.o.org/api-wg pretty > > easily - it seems like a good place to start to publish this > > content. > > > > thanks for getting the r

[openstack-dev] [api] API Workgroup git repository

Hi, The API Workgroup git repository has been setup and you can access it here. http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/api-wg/ There is some content there though not all the proposed guidelines from the wiki page are in yet: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Proposed/APIGuidelines Pl

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Request Validation - Stoplight

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Kenichi Oomichi wrote: > Hi Amit, > > Thanks for picking this topic up, > > Honestly I don't have a strong opinion about validation libraries. > Each project implements based on different web frameworks and > the options of validation libraries would be limited f

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Request Validation - Stoplight

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:38:58 -0400 Jay Pipes wrote: > > > For stackers who are interested in different validation frameworks > > to implement validation, I recommend checking out Stoplight. > > Just my two cents on this particular topic, I think it's more > important to standardize ways in which

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] APIImpact flag for nova specs

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:44:15 -0500 Anne Gentle wrote: > > > > > I think adding APIImpact will be useful. > > I also want to point to the addition of Compute v2 (haven't yet > proposed a spec for v2.1) to the nova-specs repo here: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129329/ > > The goal is to m

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] API recommendation

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell < kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 12:39 -0400, Andrew Laski wrote: > > On 10/15/2014 11:49 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote: > > > Now that we have an API working group forming, I'd like to kick off > some > > > discussion

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] APIImpact flag for nova specs

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > > Le 15/10/2014 11:56, Christopher Yeoh a écrit : > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Alex Xu wrote: > >> On 2014年10月15日 14:20, Christopher Yeoh wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wa

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] APIImpact flag for nova specs

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Alex Xu wrote: > On 2014年10月15日 14:20, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering what people thought of having a convention of adding >> an APIImpact flag to proposed nova specs commit messages where the >> Nova AP

[openstack-dev] [nova] APIImpact flag for nova specs

Hi, I was wondering what people thought of having a convention of adding an APIImpact flag to proposed nova specs commit messages where the Nova API will change? It would make it much easier to find proposed specs which affect the API as its not always clear from the gerrit summary listing. Chris

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Forming the API Working Group

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:45:44 -0400 Jay Pipes wrote: > On 10/14/2014 12:52 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 22:20:32 -0400 > > Jay Pipes wrote: > > > >> On 10/13/2014 07:11 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > >>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Forming the API Working Group

e to participate. Chris > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: > > > Jay Pipes wrote: > > > On 10/13/2014 07:11 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > > >> I guess we could also start fleshing out in the repo how we'll > &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Forming the API Working Group

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:57:01 -0400 Jay Pipes wrote: > On 10/14/2014 05:04 AM, Alex Xu wrote: > > There is one reason to think about what projects *currently* do. > > When we choice which convention we want. > > For example, the CamelCase and snake_case, if the most project use > > snake_case, then

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Forming the API Working Group

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:27:21 +0200 "Ken'ichi Ohmichi" wrote: > 2014-10-13 16:52 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes : > > On 10/10/2014 02:05 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > >> > >> I agree with what you've written on the wiki page. I think our &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Forming the API Working Group

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 22:20:32 -0400 Jay Pipes wrote: > On 10/13/2014 07:11 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:52:26 -0400 > > Jay Pipes wrote: > > > >> On 10/10/2014 02:05 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > >>> I agree with what yo

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Forming the API Working Group

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:52:26 -0400 Jay Pipes wrote: > On 10/10/2014 02:05 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > > I agree with what you've written on the wiki page. I think our > > priority needs to be to flesh out > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Proposed/AP

Re: [openstack-dev] [api] Forming the API Working Group

Hi Everett, Great to see things moving with the API Working Group! On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Everett Toews wrote: > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/API_Working_Group > > This is the start of the API Working Group (API WG). > > To avoid bike shedding over the name of the working group, I d

[openstack-dev] [nova] Nova API meeting

Hi, Just a reminder that the weekly Nova API meeting is being held tomorrow Friday UTC . We encourage cloud operators and those who use the REST API such as SDK developers and others who and are interested in the future of the API to participate. In other timezones the meeting is at: EST 2

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][docs][tc] How to scale Documentation

On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:24:30 +0200 Julien Danjou wrote: > On Sun, Oct 05 2014, Joshua Harlow wrote: > > I agree. I think we should have documentation be part of our policy to > accept patches, just as we do with e.g. unit testing. > > Forcing people to write documentation along the patch will h

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] why do we have os-attach-interfaces in the v3 API?

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:57:55 -0500 Matt Riedemann wrote: > The os-interface (v2) and os-attach-interfaces (v3) APIs are only > used for the neutron network API, you'll get a NotImplemented if > trying to call the related methods with nova-network [1]. > > Since we aren't proxying to neutron in t

[openstack-dev] [nova] No Nova API meeting this week

Hi, About half the regulars at the Nova API meeting are on vacation this week so I'm cancelling this weeks meeting as I don't think there is anything urgent to discuss. We'll meet as usual next week. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@l

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Fate of xmlutils

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:03:20 +0200 Julien Danjou wrote: > > It seems that Python fixed that issue with 2 modules released on PyPI: > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/defusedxml > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/defusedexpat > > I'm no XML expert, and I've only a shallow understanding of the issu

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Kilo Blueprints and Specs

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:32:57 -0700 Joe Gordon wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Gary Kotton > wrote: > > > Hi, > > Is the process documented anywhere? That is, if say for example I > > had a spec approved in J and its code did not land, how do we go > > about kicking the tires for K on

Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil wrote: > > > I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction > > with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group > > assignment in Neutron as well. > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] logging around olso lockutils

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:49:12 -0400 Sean Dague wrote: > > #1 - tried to get a lock, but someone else has it. Then we know we've > got lock contention. . > #2 - something is still holding a lock after some "long" amount of > time. +1 to both. > #2 turned out to be a critical bit in understanding

[openstack-dev] [nova] Nova API meeting

Hi, Just a reminder that the weekly Nova API meeting is being held tomorrow Friday UTC . We encourage cloud operators and those who use the REST API such as SDK developers and others who and are interested in the future of the API to participate. In other timezones the meeting is at: EST 2

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [All] API standards working group

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:05:09 -0400 Jay Pipes wrote: > On 09/24/2014 12:48 PM, Everett Toews wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > > > >> I'll bring an API consumer's perspective. > > > > +1 > > > > I’d bring an API consumer’s perspective as well. > > > > Looks like there’s

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [All] API standards working group

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:48:43 + Everett Toews wrote: > On Sep 24, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > > > I'll bring an API consumer's perspective. > > +1 > > I’d bring an API consumer’s perspective as well. > > Looks like there’s lots of support for an API WG. What’s the next > step

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Some ideas for micro-version implementation

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:04:51 -0400 Jay Pipes wrote: > On 09/24/2014 05:26 AM, Kenichi Oomichi wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:47 AM > >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> Subject: Re: [ope

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [All] API standards working group

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:18:56 -0400 Jay Pipes wrote: > On 09/23/2014 05:03 PM, Rochelle.RochelleGrober wrote: > > jaypi...@gmail.com on Tuesday, > > September 23, 2014 9:09 AM wrote: > > > > _Snip > > > > I'd like to say finally t

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] REST API style guide (Re: [Nova] Some ideas for micro-version implementation)

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:00:26 +0900 "Ken'ichi Ohmichi" wrote: \> > So how about just using HTTP 200(OK) only for status codes? > That would give up providing accurate internal status to clients but > backwards backwards incompatibilities never happen. > No I think that we should where possible re

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Some ideas for micro-version implementation

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:27:47 -0500 Brant Knudson wrote: > > > > > Did you consider JSON Home[1] for this? For Juno we've got JSON Home > support in Keystone for Identity v3 (Zaqar was using it already). We > weren't planning to use it for microversioning since we weren't > planning on doing micro

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Some ideas for micro-version implementation

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:47:50 -0500 Anne Gentle wrote: > > > > (1) Input/Output attribute names > > (1.1) These names should be snake_case. > > eg: imageRef -> image_ref, flavorRef -> flavor_ref, hostId -> > > host_id (1.2) These names should contain extension names if they > > are provided in ca

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Some ideas for micro-version implementation

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:29:26 + Kenichi Oomichi wrote: > > Before discussing how to implement, I'd like to consider what we > should implement. IIUC, the purpose of v3 API is to make consistent > API with the backwards incompatible changes. Through huge discussion > in Juno cycle, we knew that

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Expand resource name allowed characters

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:12:28 -0400 Sean Dague wrote: > > When we can return the json-schema to user in the future, can we say > > that means API accepting utf8 or utf8mb4 is discoverable? If it is > > discoverable, then we needn't limit anything in our python code. > > Honestly, we should accept

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Expand resource name allowed characters

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:45:42 +0200 Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 09/18/2014 01:28 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 09/18/2014 07:19 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: > >> 2014-09-18 19:57 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague : > >>> On 09/18/2014 06:38 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Expand resource name allowed characters

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:48:19 -0400 Sean Dague wrote: > On 09/13/2014 02:28 AM, Kenichi Oomichi wrote: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Thanks for bring it up here, > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Chris St. Pierre [mailto:stpie...@metacloud.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 2

[openstack-dev] [nova] Nova API meeting

Hi, Just a reminder that the weekly Nova API meeting is being held tomorrow Friday UTC . We encourage cloud operators and those who use the REST API such as SDK developers and others who and are interested in the future of the API to participate. In other timezones the meeting is at: EST 2

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] are we going to remove the novaclient v3 shell or what?

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:42:30 + "Day, Phil" wrote: > I think in the hopefully not too distant future we'll be able to make > the v1_1 client handle both V2 and V2.1 (who knows. Maybe we can even > rename it v2) - and that's what we should do because it will prove if > we have full compatibilit

[openstack-dev] [nova] Nova API meeting

Hi, Just a reminder that the weekly Nova API meeting is being held tomorrow Friday UTC . We encourage cloud operators and those who use the REST API such as SDK developers and others who and are interested in the future of the API to participate. In other timezones the meeting is at: EST

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FFE server-group-quotas

I'm willing to sponsor this Chris — Sent from Mailbox On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Day, Phil wrote: > Hi, > I'd like to ask for a FFE for the 3 patchsets that implement quotas for > server groups. > Server groups (which landed in Icehouse) provides a really useful > anti-affinity filter

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Averting the Nova crisis by splitting out virt drivers

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:57:57 -0700 Joe Gordon wrote: > > Overall I do think we need to re-think how the review burden is > distributed. That being said, this is a nice proposal but I am not > sure if it moves the review burden around enough or is the right > approach. Do you have any rough number

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Averting the Nova crisis by splitting out virt drivers

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:24:29 +0100 "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote: > > - A fairly significant amount of nova code would need to be >considered semi-stable API. Certainly everything under nova/virt >and any object which is passed in/out of the virt driver API. >Changes to such APIs would h

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][FFE] v3-api-schema

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 22:30:51 +0900 "Ken'ichi Ohmichi" wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to request FFE for patches of v3-api-schema. > The list is the following: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/67428/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103437/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103436/ > https://re

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [FFE] alternative request for v2-on-v3-api

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:08:09 +0900 "Ken'ichi Ohmichi" wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to request FFE for v2.1 API patches. > > This request is different from Christopher's one. > His request is for the approved patches, but this is > for some patches which are not approved yet. > > https://review.open

[openstack-dev] [nova] FFE request v2-on-v3-api

Hi, I'd like to request a FFE for 4 changesets from the v2-on-v3-api blueprint: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113814/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115515/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115576/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/11/ They have all already been approved and were in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Lack of consistency in returning response from tempest clients

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:13:39 -0400 David Kranz wrote: > On 08/29/2014 10:56 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 08/29/2014 10:19 AM, David Kranz wrote: > >> While reviewing patches for moving response checking to the > >> clients, I noticed that there are places where client methods do > >> not return a

[openstack-dev] [nova] Nova API meeting

Hi, Just a reminder that the weekly Nova API meeting is being held tomorrow Friday UTC . We encourage cloud operators and those who use the REST API such as SDK developers and others who and are interested in the future of the API to participate. In other timezones the meeting is at: EST

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Server Group API: add 'action' to authorizer?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:56:27 -0500 Joe Cropper wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Would anyone be opposed to adding the 'action' checking to the v2/v3 > authorizers? This would allow administrators more fine-grained > control over who can read vs. create/update/delete server groups. > > Thoughts? > > If

  1   2   3   4   >