ariatosca-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tal Liron <...@cloudify.co>
Subject Re: TOSCA spec compliance on finding target node
Date Mon, 07 Aug 2017 15:30:30 GMT
I think you are talking about requirements? Some of the combinations you
mention are for requirement declarations (at the node type) and some for
requirement assignments (at the node template).

Generally speaking, ARIA intends to support 100% of the TOSCA spec, so feel
free to contribute. If a combination does not work, it is a bug.

There is a known bug about requiring a capability without a template that
is being worked on.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Vaishnavi K.R <vaishnavi.k.r@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> I tried the following combinations in my service template,
>
>   1.  Type definition with capability type alone but node template having
> any of the following,
>      *   capability type alone
>      *   capability name alone
>      *   node type alone
>      *   node name alone
>      *   capability name and node name
>      *   capability name and node type
>      *   capability type and node type
>      *   capability type and node type
>   2.  Type definition with capability type and node type
>      *   capability type alone
>      *   capability name alone
>      *   node type alone
>      *   node name alone
>      *   capability name and node name
>      *   capability name and node type
>      *   capability type and node type
>      *   capability type and node type
>
> As per the TOSCA specification, the above are valid combinations.
>
> Will ARIA support all the above ?? If so, we wish to contribute.
>
> Looking forward to your comment.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> /Vaish
>
> ________________________________
> From: Tal Liron <tal@cloudify.co>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:03:18 PM
> To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: TOSCA spec compliance on finding target node
>
> It indeed should *not* be required. I just verified that it you are
> correct, and a match is not made if only the capability is specified
> without a node type/template.
>
> This is a regression, because it used to work correctly.
>
> There is currently work in progress to refactor that mechanism, so I will
> add a test case to make sure the regression is fixed.
>
> See my test case and follow progress here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIA-174
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Vaishnavi K.R <vaishnavi.k.r@ericsson.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi ARIA folks,
> >
> >
> > I had a look at the source code of ARIA on how the target node is
> > identified based on the requirement and capability information furnished
> in
> > the node template and its corresponding node type. But I find that only
> few
> > of the combinations are supported i.e., as per the TOSCA spec, in the
> > requirement section of a node template, the 'node' option is not
> mandatory,
> > but ARIA expects that to be present.
> >
> >
> > In my use-case, my node template has a requirement on a node which has a
> > particular capability. So I just specify the capability type in my node
> > template under the requirement section. As ARIA expects the 'node' option
> > to be present, this use-case fails.
> >
> >
> > So I wish to get clarified is there any specific reason for mandating the
> > 'node' option or if TOSCA spec compliance on this target identification
> > based on the capability name or type will be supported in the future
> > versions?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > /Vaish
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message