Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Should we delete the (unexposed) os-pci API?

2017-04-18 Thread Matt Riedemann

On 3/17/2017 3:23 PM, Sean Dague wrote:

Yes... with fire.

Realistically this was about the pinnacle of the extensions on
extensions API changes, which is why we didn't even let it into v2 in
the first place.


Here it is: https://review.openstack.org/457854

--

Thanks,

Matt

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Should we delete the (unexposed) os-pci API?

2017-03-17 Thread Ed Leafe
On Mar 17, 2017, at 3:23 PM, Sean Dague  wrote:

>> So I move that we delete the (dead) code. Are there good reasons not to?
> 
> Yes... with fire.
> 
> Realistically this was about the pinnacle of the extensions on
> extensions API changes, which is why we didn't even let it into v2 in
> the first place.

Fire does not seem strong enough.


-- Ed Leafe







signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Should we delete the (unexposed) os-pci API?

2017-03-17 Thread Jay Pipes

On 03/17/2017 04:23 PM, Sean Dague wrote:

On 03/17/2017 04:19 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:

I was working on writing a spec for a blueprint [1] that would have
touched on the os-pci API [2] and got to documenting about how it's not
even documented [3] when Alex pointed out that the API is not even
enabled [4][5].

It turns out that the os-pci API was added in the Nova V3 API and pulled
back out, and [5] was a tracking bug to add it back in with a
microversion, and that never happened.

Given the ugliness described in [3], and that I think our views on
exposing this type of information have changed [6] since it was
originally added, I'm proposing that we just delete the API code.

The API code itself was added back in Icehouse [7].

I tend to think if someone cared about needing this information in the
REST API, they would have asked for it by now. As it stands, it's just
technical debt and even if we did expose it, there are existing issues
in the API, like the fact that the os-hypervisors extension just takes
the compute_nodes.pci_stats dict and dumps it to json out of the REST
API with no control over the keys in the response. That means if we ever
change the fields in the PciDevicePool object, we implicitly introduce a
backward incompatible change in the REST API.

So I move that we delete the (dead) code. Are there good reasons not to?

[1]
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/service-hyper-pci-uuid-in-api
[2]
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/15.0.0/nova/api/openstack/compute/pci.py

[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1673869
[4] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/15.0.0/setup.cfg#L132
[5] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1426241
[6]
https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/policies.html?highlight=metrics#metrics-gathering

[7] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/51135/



Yes... with fire.

Realistically this was about the pinnacle of the extensions on
extensions API changes, which is why we didn't even let it into v2 in
the first place.


++

-jay

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Should we delete the (unexposed) os-pci API?

2017-03-17 Thread Sean Dague
On 03/17/2017 04:19 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> I was working on writing a spec for a blueprint [1] that would have
> touched on the os-pci API [2] and got to documenting about how it's not
> even documented [3] when Alex pointed out that the API is not even
> enabled [4][5].
> 
> It turns out that the os-pci API was added in the Nova V3 API and pulled
> back out, and [5] was a tracking bug to add it back in with a
> microversion, and that never happened.
> 
> Given the ugliness described in [3], and that I think our views on
> exposing this type of information have changed [6] since it was
> originally added, I'm proposing that we just delete the API code.
> 
> The API code itself was added back in Icehouse [7].
> 
> I tend to think if someone cared about needing this information in the
> REST API, they would have asked for it by now. As it stands, it's just
> technical debt and even if we did expose it, there are existing issues
> in the API, like the fact that the os-hypervisors extension just takes
> the compute_nodes.pci_stats dict and dumps it to json out of the REST
> API with no control over the keys in the response. That means if we ever
> change the fields in the PciDevicePool object, we implicitly introduce a
> backward incompatible change in the REST API.
> 
> So I move that we delete the (dead) code. Are there good reasons not to?
> 
> [1]
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/service-hyper-pci-uuid-in-api
> [2]
> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/15.0.0/nova/api/openstack/compute/pci.py
> 
> [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1673869
> [4] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/15.0.0/setup.cfg#L132
> [5] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1426241
> [6]
> https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/policies.html?highlight=metrics#metrics-gathering
> 
> [7] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/51135/
> 

Yes... with fire.

Realistically this was about the pinnacle of the extensions on
extensions API changes, which is why we didn't even let it into v2 in
the first place.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


[openstack-dev] [nova] Should we delete the (unexposed) os-pci API?

2017-03-17 Thread Matt Riedemann
I was working on writing a spec for a blueprint [1] that would have 
touched on the os-pci API [2] and got to documenting about how it's not 
even documented [3] when Alex pointed out that the API is not even 
enabled [4][5].


It turns out that the os-pci API was added in the Nova V3 API and pulled 
back out, and [5] was a tracking bug to add it back in with a 
microversion, and that never happened.


Given the ugliness described in [3], and that I think our views on 
exposing this type of information have changed [6] since it was 
originally added, I'm proposing that we just delete the API code.


The API code itself was added back in Icehouse [7].

I tend to think if someone cared about needing this information in the 
REST API, they would have asked for it by now. As it stands, it's just 
technical debt and even if we did expose it, there are existing issues 
in the API, like the fact that the os-hypervisors extension just takes 
the compute_nodes.pci_stats dict and dumps it to json out of the REST 
API with no control over the keys in the response. That means if we ever 
change the fields in the PciDevicePool object, we implicitly introduce a 
backward incompatible change in the REST API.


So I move that we delete the (dead) code. Are there good reasons not to?

[1] 
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/service-hyper-pci-uuid-in-api
[2] 
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/15.0.0/nova/api/openstack/compute/pci.py

[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1673869
[4] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/15.0.0/setup.cfg#L132
[5] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1426241
[6] 
https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/policies.html?highlight=metrics#metrics-gathering

[7] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/51135/

--

Thanks,

Matt

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev