cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
Date Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:32:48 GMT
Alena,

It has been reduced almost twice because a lot has been separated from the
CS and moved to the plug-in not because they are 'unnecessary'. Please
remember that my initial implementation was inside the CS not as a plug-in
as I said in the previous email.

Of course, I asked and urged the review repeatedly and you'll see the all
the histories of them if you find emails using this subject, which started
10/17/13.
[DISCUSS] Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among Multiple Regions
Even if I asked so many times, unfortunately, I couldn't get an actual
feedback until Daan finally asked Chiradeep and you to review them, which
is 3/10/14.

Kishan,
I posted 2 questions, so please guide me for the questions.

Thanks
Alex Ough



On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:

>  Alex,
>
>  By “huge” I’ve meant that there was a lot of repetitive hardcoded
> things, lot of unnecessary changes to the CS orchestration layer. If you
> compare a number of changes now and originally, you can see that it reduced
> almost twice.
>
>  But lets discuss the complains about lack of initial review as its more
> important question.
>
>  Review of the design spec should happen before you start
> designing/coding. As I jumped on review much later, after you’ve submitted
> the entire plugin code, so I I didn’t participate in “Feature Request”
> discussion review that might have happened earlier. And I do assume that
> the reviews/emails exchanges were done at that initial phase? You should
> have contacted the people participating in the initial phase, and ask them
> for the review as well.
>
>  As a part of my review, I’ve made sure to cover the things I’m certain
> should have been changed. I’ve reviewed the feature logic as well,
> consulting the FS you’ve written. I’m not saying that there is anything
> wrong with your initial design, but asking for a second opinion from the
> guys who have more expertise in Regions.
>
>  Kishan, please help to do the final review the Alex’s plugin design
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/17790
>
>  Thank you,
> Alena.
>  From: Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 9:03 PM
>
> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
> Cc: Kishan Kavala <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com>, "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Murali Reddy <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>, Ram
> Ganesh <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com>, Animesh Chaturvedi <
> animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
> Subject: Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among
> Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>
>   Alena,
>
>  I understand that you have been helping a lot to make my codes to match
> the coding standards, but I'm not sure what you mean by "the code base was
> unnecessary huge".
> The initial implementation was to support the synchronization inside the
> CS because this feature is missing in the current multiple region support,
> and most of jobs were  to separate the implementation from the CS because
> you guys wanted me to provide it as a plugin.
>
>  And I kept asking reviews for the design spec from when I published the
> documents with initial prototype, it took a while for you to start to
> review my implementation and they have been mostly about the coding
> standards instead of the logic itself. So I'm saying that it would have
> been better if there has been someone to review the design spec and the
> prototype from the initial phase.
>
>  Again, I really appreciate your help to come this far, but it was also
> very painful for me.
> Thanks
> Alex Ough
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>>  Alex,
>>
>>  In the beginning the code was not very well organazied, didn't match
>> coding standarts (no use of spring, misleading names, not segregated to its
>> own plugin), and the code base was unneccessary huge.
>> All of the above it very hard to review and understand the code logic
>> from the beginning and engage more people to the review. Therefore
>> Chiradeep pointed it in his original review that the code needs to match CS
>> standarts first, and be better organized. I helped to review the fixes, and
>> did logic review as well after the code came into “reviewable” shape.
>>
>>  I'm asking Kishan/Murali to look at it to see if anything is missing or
>> incorrect in the final review, not to make you override or change
>> everything you've already put in.
>>
>>  Thank you,
>> Alena.
>>
>>   From: Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 7:12 PM
>>
>> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
>> Cc: Kishan Kavala <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com>, "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
>> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Murali Reddy <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>,
Ram
>> Ganesh <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com>, Animesh Chaturvedi <
>> animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
>> Subject: Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among
>> Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>
>>   Alena,
>>
>>  Don't get me wrong. What I'm saying is that it would have been better
>> if you asked the review to whomever you thought was important when you
>> started the review.
>>
>>  Thanks
>> Alex Ough
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
>> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Alex,
>>>
>>>  I did my best to review the code, made sure it came in shape with the
>>> CS guidelines and java code style There was no way to anticipate all the
>>> things to fix originally, as every subsequent review update added more
>>> things to fix as the review code was new/refactored.
>>>
>>>  And I don’t see anything wrong about asking for a FINAL opinion from
>>> other people on the mailing list, considering some of them participated in
>>> the review process along the way already (Kishan). Anybody can review the
>>> review ticket till its closed, and point to the items that other reviewers
>>> might have missed.
>>>
>>>  Thank you,
>>> Alena.
>>>
>>>   From: Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 6:33 PM
>>> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
>>> Cc: Kishan Kavala <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com>, "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
>>> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Murali Reddy <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>,
>>> Ram Ganesh <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com>, Animesh Chaturvedi <
>>> animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among
>>> Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>
>>>   Thanks Alena, and I'm glad if they spend time for the review, but
>>> could it be a little earlier for you to ask them to review instead of at
>>> the last moment?
>>> I'm really exhausted with repeatedly added items whenever I post a
>>> review.
>>>
>>>  Thanks
>>> Alex Ough
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
>>> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Alex, looks fine to me. Make sure that you put the regionId
>>>> validation as our in-built API validation won’t work in this case because
>>>> there is no UUID field support for the Region object. You can check how
>>>> validation is begin done in updateRegion/deleteRegion scenarios.
>>>>
>>>>  Kishan/Murali, can you please spend some time doing the final review
>>>> for Alex’s tickets? As you are the original developers for Region, and
>>>> probably have the most expertise on the topic. I don’t want to commit the
>>>> fixes before I hear “ship it” from both of you, guys.
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks,
>>>> Alena.
>>>>  From: Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM
>>>> To: Kishan Kavala <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com>
>>>> Cc: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>, "
>>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Murali Reddy
<
>>>> Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>, Ram Ganesh <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com>, Animesh
>>>> Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up Among
>>>> Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>
>>>>   Hi Alena,
>>>>
>>>>  Can you confirm if this fix is correct?
>>>>
>>>>      @Parameter(name = ApiConstants.ORIGINATED_REGION_ID, type =
>>>> CommandType.INTEGER, description = "Region where this account is created.",
>>>> since = "4.5")
>>>>     private Integer originatedRegionId;
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks
>>>> Alex Ough
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Kishan Kavala <
>>>> Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> You can refer to the code from initDataSource  method in
>>>>> Transaction.java.
>>>>>
>>>>> Properties file can be loaded using the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *File dbPropsFile = PropertiesUtil.findConfigFile(propsFileName);*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Alex Ough [mailto:alex.ough@sungardas.com]
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 June 2014 4:31 PM
>>>>> *To:* Kishan Kavala
>>>>> *Cc:* Alena Prokharchyk; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Murali Reddy; Ram
>>>>> Ganesh; Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Kishan, but there seems to be lots of 'db.properties' files, so
>>>>> which one should be referenced?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Ough
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Kishan Kavala <
>>>>> Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> As Alena mentioned, it is admin’s responsibility to keep ids same
>>>>> across Regions. Ids should be used as unique identifier. Region name
is
>>>>> merely descriptive name and its mostly associated with geographic location.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also note that region name can be updated anytime using updateRegion
>>>>> API.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike, other internal Ids in CS, region Ids are assigned by admin. So
>>>>> exposing region Id to admin should not be an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Id of the local region cannot be guaranteed to be “1” always. Region
>>>>> Id has to be unique across all regions. While creating new region admin
>>>>> will provide unique region id to *cloud-setup-databases* script. Id
>>>>> of the local region is stored in db.properties. To identify a Local region
>>>>> you can use one of the following options:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.       Look up region.id in db.properties
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.       Add a new column in region table
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Alex Ough [mailto:alex.ough@sungardas.com]
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 June 2014 8:18 AM
>>>>> *To:* Alena Prokharchyk
>>>>> *Cc:* dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Kishan Kavala; Murali Reddy; Ram
>>>>> Ganesh; Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one thing that was not mentioned, which is that currently the
>>>>> id of 'Local' region is always 1 and if we do not guarantee that, there
is
>>>>> no way to find out which is the local region unless we add one more field
>>>>> to tells which is the local region.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if we have a solution for this now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Ough
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with that the ids are unique identifier, but they are usually
>>>>> internal purpose not exposed to the users. So it is a little strange
to ask
>>>>> users to assign ids when they add new regions. And if we do not allow
>>>>> duplicated names, I'm not sure why it is not good to use names as a unique
>>>>> identifier.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been a long way to come this far with several reasons, so I
>>>>> really want to wrap this up as soon as possible, and this doesn't seem
to
>>>>> be a major obstacle, so let me just use 'id' as a parameter if there
is no
>>>>> one with a different thought until tomorrow morning.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Ough
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
>>>>> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex, id is used as a unique identifier for CS objects. And it is the
>>>>> CS requirement to refer to the object by id if the id is present. Look
at
>>>>> all the other APIs. We nowhere refer to the network/vpc/vm by name just
>>>>> because its more human readable. The id is used by Api layer when parameter
>>>>> validation is done, by lots of Dao methods (findById is one of them),
etc.
>>>>>  Even look at updateRegion/deleteRegion – we don’t refer to them
by name,
>>>>> but by the id.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason why Kishan added the support for controlling the id by
>>>>> adding it to the createRegion call (and making it unique) is exactly
that –
>>>>> region administrator can decide what id to set on the region, and to
>>>>> introduce the region with the same id to the other regions’ db.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So I would still suggest on using the id of the region in the API
>>>>> calls you are modifying. Unless developers who worked on regions feature
–
>>>>> Kishan/Murali – come up with the valid objection.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alena.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 5:41 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
>>>>> *Cc: *"dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>,
Kishan
>>>>> Kavala <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy <
>>>>> Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>, Ram Ganesh <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com>,
Animesh
>>>>> Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We can use the same ids & names, but we don't have to use the same
ids
>>>>> if we use names, which is a little easier because names are user readable
>>>>> but ids are not, so we don't need to memorize/check all the ids when
we add
>>>>> new regions in multiple regions, which can be confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Ough
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
>>>>> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren’t we supposed to sync the regions across the multiple regions
>>>>> Dbs? Because that’s what region FS states:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/AWS-Style+Regions+Functional+Spec,
>>>>> “Adding 2nd region” paragraph, bullet #4:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Install a 2nd CS instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. While installing database set region_id using -r option in
>>>>> cloud-setup-databases script (Make sure *database_key* is same across
>>>>> all regions).
>>>>>
>>>>> *cloud-setup-databases cloud:**<**dbpassword**>**@localhost
>>>>> --deploy-as=root:**<**password**>** -e **<**encryption_type**>**
-m *
>>>>> *<**management_server_key**>** -k **<**database_key**> -r
<region_id>*
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Start mgmt server
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. *Using addRegion API, add region 1 to region 2 and also region 2
>>>>> to region 1.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume that we expect the admin to add the region with the same name
>>>>> and the same id to ALL regions Dbs (both id and name should be passed
to
>>>>> createRegion call). So they are all in sync. Isn’t it the requirement?
If
>>>>> so, we should rely on the fact that all regions Dbs will have the same
set
>>>>> of regions having the same ids and names cross regions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alena.
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM
>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
>>>>> *Cc: *"dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>,
Kishan
>>>>> Kavala <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy <
>>>>> Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>, Ram Ganesh <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com>,
Animesh
>>>>> Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'm trying to say is that when we pass the ids of regions, the
>>>>> receivers do not know what the originated region is and the id of each
>>>>> region is not same across all the regions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Ough
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
>>>>> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex, thank you for summarizing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  I still don’t see why id can’t be unique across regions as you can
>>>>> control the id assignment – id is required when createRegion call is
made.
>>>>> And that’s how the region should be represented in other region’s
Dbs – by
>>>>> its id that is unique across the regions. Kishan/Murali, please confirm.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alena.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 4:22 PM
>>>>> *To: *"dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> *Cc: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>, Kishan
Kavala
>>>>> <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>,
>>>>> Ram Ganesh <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com>, Animesh Chaturvedi <
>>>>> animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one open question in this topic, which is to figure out which
>>>>> value is appropriate to pass the region object, id or name?
>>>>>
>>>>> During this implementation, we decided to add the information of
>>>>> regions where user/account/domain objects have been originally
>>>>> created/modified/removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the ids of regions are not same across the regions and currently
>>>>> the regions do not have uuids(they will not be same either if we add
them
>>>>> to regions), so I'd like to use names.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know what you think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Ough
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
>>>>> animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Let’s have the discussion on dev mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Animesh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Alena Prokharchyk
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:06 PM
>>>>> *To:* Alex Ough; Kishan Kavala; Murali Reddy
>>>>> *Cc:* Animesh Chaturvedi; Ram Ganesh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding Kishan to the thread as he was the one who implemented the
>>>>> region feature originally.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kishan, in a situation when there are 2 regions in the system, we
>>>>> expect “region” table to be populated with the same id/name in both
Dbs for
>>>>> both regions, right? So my question is – what uniquely identifies the
>>>>> region in CS system in cross region setup – id/name?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That unique identifier should be the value that is passed to the calls
>>>>> you modify, Alex. WE can’t just pass some random name to the call without
>>>>> making any further verification.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kishan/Murali, please help to verify this part of Alex’s fix as it
>>>>> should really be someone with an expertise in Regions. I’ve reviewed
the
>>>>> rest of the feature, just this one item is open. See my latest comment
to
>>>>> the https://reviews.apache.org/r/17790/diff/?page=1#0 as well as
>>>>> refer to this email thread for the context.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alena.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 2:54 PM
>>>>> *To: *Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That what would everybody assume 100% just by looking at the parameter
>>>>> description and parameter – that you refer to region UUID : "Region
where
>>>>> this account is created.”/ORIGINATEDREGIONUUID
>>>>>
>>>>> In CS the UUID has a special meaning. It has to have the UUID format,
>>>>> and its randomly generated value that is stored in the DB along with
the
>>>>> actual db id. I can see that regionVO lacks UUID field. Looks like existing
>>>>> RegionVO object lacks this filed unlike other CS objects (uservm, etc).
I
>>>>> will follow up with Murali on that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex, so originatedRegionUUID refers to the region name, correct?. Why
>>>>> don’t use the region id instead? That’s what we do when refer to
CS objects
>>>>> – we always refer to them by id which is unique. Which is true even
for the
>>>>> region:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> mysql> show create table region;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  UNIQUE KEY `id` (`id`),
>>>>>
>>>>>   UNIQUE KEY `name` (`name`)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s what you do when you manipulate the region itself
>>>>> (delete/updateRegion) - refer to the region by its id. And this field
is
>>>>> returned to you when you call listRegions API:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://localhost:8096/?command=listRegions
>>>>>
>>>>> <region>
>>>>>
>>>>> <id>1</id>
>>>>>
>>>>> <name>Local</name>
>>>>>
>>>>> <endpoint>http://localhost:8080/client/</endpoint>
>>>>>
>>>>> <gslbserviceenabled>true</gslbserviceenabled>
>>>>>
>>>>> <portableipserviceenabled>false</portableipserviceenabled>
>>>>>
>>>>> </region>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please correct if I miss something.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alena.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM
>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the clarification, but here is a thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm passing names as the values of originatedRegionUuids because the
>>>>> uuids are randomly generated and the same regions do NOT have the same
>>>>> uuidss.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'd like to change the parameter types into String.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know if you think otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Ough
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
>>>>> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> take a look at ParamProcessWorker class, and how API parameters are
>>>>> being dispatched/verified.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1)  public void processParameters(final BaseCmd cmd, final Map params)
>>>>> method
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, EntityType parameter should be defined in the @Parameter
>>>>> annotation for the originatedRegionID field. This parameter is used by
>>>>> paramProcessWorker to make "if entity exists" validation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Check another method in the same class:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> private void setFieldValue(final Field field, final BaseCmd cmdObj,
>>>>> final Object paramObj, final Parameter annotation) throws
>>>>> IllegalArgumentException, ParseException {
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats the method responsible for dispatching/setting the field values.
>>>>> Here is the snippet of the code for the case when UUID is defined:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  case UUID:
>>>>>
>>>>>                     if (paramObj.toString().isEmpty())
>>>>>
>>>>>                         break;
>>>>>
>>>>>                     final Long internalId =
>>>>> translateUuidToInternalId(paramObj.toString(), annotation);
>>>>>
>>>>>                     field.set(cmdObj, internalId);
>>>>>
>>>>>                     break;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it always transforms the UUID to Long id, not string. And at the end,
>>>>> it will be internal DB UUID, not the UUID. If you need the UUID, you
have
>>>>> to get it by a) retrieving the object from the DB by id b) Getting its
UUID
>>>>> property.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you leave it as a String, you will hit IllegalArgumentException at
>>>>> "field.set(cmdObj, internalId);" line.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope it answers your questions, and let me know if anything else needs
>>>>> to be clarified.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -alena.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 1:57 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you want to change UUID to 'Long'?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you just correct what I fixed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
>>>>> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  You need to put:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *  the entityType parameter to the annotation.
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Change the type to Long as I’ve already mentioned. Check how
>>>>>    other commands handle the parameters (networkId, vpcId, etc)
>>>>>
>>>>>  —Alena.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Review Request 20099: Domain-Account-User Sync Up
>>>>> Among Multiple Regions (Core Changes)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will this change work?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     @Parameter(name = ApiConstants.ORIGINATED_REGION_ID, type =
>>>>> CommandType.UUID, description = "Region UUID where this account is
>>>>> created.", since = "4.5")
>>>>>
>>>>>     private String originatedRegionUUID;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Alex Ough <alex.ough@sungardas.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Alena,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what really frustrates me, but can you give the final items
>>>>> instead of keeping adding more items whenever I post a review, please?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you gurantee that this is the only item you want me to fix?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
>>>>> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex, as a part of the fix, also change the param name to be regionId
>>>>> (there should be a value in apiconstants already) as the parameter really
>>>>> reflects CS region object, and we usually refer to those as networkID,
>>>>> vpcID (not uuid) although uuid are passed in. Check if the rest of the
api
>>>>> changes you've done, respect this rule. Sorry, out of the office now
and
>>>>> cant check myself if there are any.
>>>>>
>>>>> -alena
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 11:12 AM, "Alena Prokharchyk" <
>>>>> alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>>>>>
>>>>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/20099/#review46557
>>>>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Alex, one small thing.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Just noticed that in the API commands you pass regionUUID as a
>>>>> string. You should pass it as a type of UUID and specify the entityType
>>>>> parameter in @Parameter so the entity validation is done correctly. Example:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > @Parameter(name=ApiConstants.ZONE_ID, type=CommandType.UUID,
>>>>> entityType = ZoneResponse.class,
>>>>> >            required=true, description="the Zone ID for the network")
>>>>> >    private Long zoneId;
>>>>> >
>>>>> > That is the rule when passing id/uuid of the first class CS object
>>>>> to the API call
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Then be aware of the fact that the APIDispatcher will transform
UUID
>>>>> to the actual DB id, and that would be the Id that you pass to the services
>>>>> call. If what you need is UUID, not the actual id, to be saved in the
>>>>> callContext, you have to transform it explicitly.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > - Alena Prokharchyk
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> >> On June 24, 2014, 3:54 p.m., Alex Ough wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>>>>> >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20099/
>>>>>
>>>>> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> (Updated June 24, 2014, 3:54 p.m.)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Review request for cloudstack.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Repository: cloudstack-git
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Description
>>>>> >> -------
>>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> This is the review request for the core changes related with
#17790
>>>>> that has only the new plugin codes.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Diffs
>>>>> >> -----
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>  api/src/com/cloud/event/EventTypes.java 0fa3cd5
>>>>>
>>>>> >>  api/src/com/cloud/user/AccountService.java eac8a76
>>>>> >>  api/src/com/cloud/user/DomainService.java 4c1f93d
>>>>> >>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/ApiConstants.java adda5f4
>>>>> >>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/BaseCmd.java ac9a208
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/CreateAccountCmd.java
>>>>> 50d67d9
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/DeleteAccountCmd.java
>>>>> 5754ec5
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/DisableAccountCmd.java
>>>>> 3e5e1d3
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/EnableAccountCmd.java
>>>>> f30c985
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/LockAccountCmd.java
>>>>> 3c185e4
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/account/UpdateAccountCmd.java
>>>>> a7ce74a
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/domain/CreateDomainCmd.java
>>>>> 312c9ee
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/domain/DeleteDomainCmd.java
>>>>> a6d2b0b
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/domain/UpdateDomainCmd.java
>>>>> 409a84d
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/region/AddRegionCmd.java
>>>>> f6743ba
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/region/UpdateRegionCmd.java
>>>>> b08cbbb
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/CreateUserCmd.java
>>>>> 8f223ac
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/DeleteUserCmd.java
>>>>> 08ba521
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/DisableUserCmd.java
>>>>> c6e09ef
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/EnableUserCmd.java
>>>>> d69eccf
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/LockUserCmd.java
>>>>> 69623d0
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/RegisterCmd.java
>>>>> 2090d21
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/UpdateUserCmd.java
>>>>> f21e264
>>>>> >>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/response/RegionResponse.java
>>>>> 6c74fa6
>>>>> >>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/Region.java df64e44
>>>>> >>  api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionService.java afefcc7
>>>>> >>  api/test/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/test/RegionCmdTest.java
>>>>> 10c3d85
>>>>> >>  client/pom.xml 29fef4f
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  engine/schema/resources/META-INF/cloudstack/core/spring-engine-schema-core-daos-context.xml
>>>>> 2ef0d20
>>>>> >>  engine/schema/src/com/cloud/user/AccountVO.java 0f5a044
>>>>> >>  engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionVO.java
>>>>> 608bd2b
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  plugins/network-elements/juniper-contrail/test/org/apache/cloudstack/network/contrail/management/MockAccountManager.java
>>>>> 4136b5c
>>>>> >>  plugins/pom.xml b5e6a61
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  plugins/user-authenticators/ldap/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/LdapCreateAccountCmd.java
>>>>> b753952
>>>>> >>
>>>>>  plugins/user-authenticators/ldap/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/LdapImportUsersCmd.java
>>>>> 6f7be90
>>>>>
>>>>> >>  server/src/com/cloud/api/ApiResponseHelper.java f1f0d2c
>>>>> >>  server/src/com/cloud/api/dispatch/ParamProcessWorker.java 1592b93
>>>>> >>  server/src/com/cloud/event/ActionEventUtils.java 2b3cfea
>>>>> >>  server/src/com/cloud/projects/ProjectManagerImpl.java d10c059
>>>>> >>  server/src/com/cloud/user/AccountManager.java 194c5d2
>>>>> >>  server/src/com/cloud/user/AccountManagerImpl.java 7a889f1
>>>>> >>  server/src/com/cloud/user/DomainManager.java f72b18a
>>>>> >>  server/src/com/cloud/user/DomainManagerImpl.java fbbe0c2
>>>>> >>  server/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionManager.java
6f25481
>>>>> >>  server/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionManagerImpl.java
>>>>> 8910714
>>>>> >>  server/src/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionServiceImpl.java
>>>>> 98cf500
>>>>> >>  server/test/com/cloud/user/AccountManagerImplTest.java 176cf1d
>>>>> >>  server/test/com/cloud/user/MockAccountManagerImpl.java 746fa1b
>>>>> >>  server/test/com/cloud/user/MockDomainManagerImpl.java 7dddefb
>>>>> >>  server/test/org/apache/cloudstack/region/RegionManagerTest.java
>>>>> d7bc537
>>>>> >>  setup/db/db/schema-440to450.sql ee419a2
>>>>> >>  ui/scripts/regions.js 368c1bf
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20099/diff/
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Testing
>>>>> >> -------
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>> >> 1. Successfully tested real time synchronization as soon as
>>>>> resources are created/deleted/modified in one region.
>>>>> >> 2. Successfully tested full scans to synchronize resources that
>>>>> were missed during real time synchronization because of any reasons like
>>>>> network connection issues.
>>>>> >> 3. The tests were done manually and also automatically by randomly
>>>>> generating changes each region.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Alex Ough
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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