incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com>
Subject Re: Merge request: Merging api_refactoring on master
Date Sat, 22 Dec 2012 19:08:33 GMT
David,

+1 to your concerns regarding timing and scope.  I also wonder what
impact this will have to Marvin, and that those impacts have been
thought tested.  We are entering a period where we are focused on
testing features leading up the 31Jan 2013 deadline.  I am concern
that Marvin will be unstable leading up the 4.1.0 deadline -- delaying
feature testing.

Thanks,
-John

On Dec 22, 2012, at 10:44 AM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm planning to merge api_refactoring branch on to master after 72 hour period which
would be Monday EOD. Pl. go through the email, and previous threads on api refactoring rework
and feel free to share your ideas, comments and vote to agree, disagree. If no one objects
I would like to ask the git Santa to merge it on Christmas 25 Dec :D (after 72 hour window)
>>
>> The reason why I want to merge around the next week is because I think we would have
lower frequencies of emails, review requests and people contributing, hence I can move around
a lot of code (mostly package renames to org.apache.cloudstack in cloud-api) and right now
the merge conflicts are really minimum, about 100-200 lines. (A top level issues to track
sub-issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-638)
>
>
>
> So yes - 72 hours is the minimum. However springing this on folks when
> a good portion of the world has begun celebrating a holiday and is
> hopefully ignoring mailing lists is incredibly bad form. This should
> at least wait until the first week of January IMO due to the magnitude
> of the change. This is incredibly invasive, and based on your comments
> below, still a work in progress.
>
>
>
>> What will be affected:
>> 0. Any class in cloud-api and on api-layer only
>> 1. Any class that imports from/to cloud-api's response and cmd classes
>>
>> Some of the major changes that will be merged on master;
>> 0. Over the wire (OTW) HTTP request to API server would send only UUID strings. All
requests done via UUIDs (and not CloudStack's internal db's IDs).
>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-518 Fix @Parameter annotation
to have annotation field to a Response class which would give us entities (interface to VO
objects). This would get rid of all IdentityMapper using which was used earlier to get VO
entities from an annotated table name. This helps us to translate OTW UUIDs to CloudStack's
DB's internal IDs.
>> 2. Separation of ACL Role access checker as an adapter, so organizations can implement
their own role based access checking. The mechanism would exist in CloudStack's API server
but policy checking is moved out of CloudStack. (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-639)
This works, but was tough to get it right the first time, there is better way which I'll share
before the merge.
>> 3. Group APIs to org.apache.cloudstack.api.{command,response}.{entity1,entity2 etc.}
packages. This is mainly done for developers, so when they work on API layer they would know
which api has what level of security and as they are grouped based on entity type, it will
be easier to search. This was mostly file movement to org.apache.cloudstack.api package and
helped us track couple of classes which are no longer needed. Another aim was to move from
com.cloud to org.apache.cloudstack (only cloud-api for now).
>> 4. Annotation work as described in 1., also for @ACL etc.
>> 5. DB, ACL validation wip code
>> 6. A lot of list api optimizations and response view work from our newest commiter,
Min Chen. The aim is to simply response, right now for. example when we listVMs we don't want
unnecessary (serialized) response objects which could be queried using uuids separately.
>>
>> Pl. ask away any doubts, questions and concerns you may have. It was challenging
for me as well to understand the functional spec, to know the why/what/how, and if you read
the old threads you can tell I did not get it the first time.
>>
>> A lot of annotation work is aimed to be completed over this weekend, so when the
branch is finally merged it won't break any functionality. At present the branch is quite
stable
>
>
>
>> Testing and how or why do it?
>> 0. Prasanna, Meghna? can help us write few basic sets of unit tests and marvin integration
tests for OTW requests. We already have few of their patches on rb.
>
> You are proposing to merge changes to master for the primary way of
> interacting with CloudStack and have not rests written?
>
>> 1. We can also have drivers to automate tests (Prasanna can talk more on this and
on his devcloud based continuous intergration server)
>> 2. If I do it now, there would be a lot more eyes to point out bugs and I want more
people to participate in the refactoring work.
>
> Is this really: 'I can break it now and make more people help me clean it up?'
>
>> 3. Right now, it builds and runs fine with minimal breaks and no functionality breakage
as most of the changes are only restricted to api-server (:cloud-api artifact). I'm able to
deploy a zone etc. To make the UUID thing work, I've put in hardcoded (for. ex. projectId=-1
which should be a string uuid not a long int value -1) stuff that saves the UI from being
broken which I'll remove after merging on master so UI engineers can help fix UI issues.
>
> API compatibility between versions is a gigantic concern for me (and
> hopefully anyone else using or working on ACS). I have asked
> previously about what the plans were around testing this [1] and
> received no answer, and judging from the above, it appears there
> aren't even tests written yet. IMO that is a blocker. I am also
> disappointed that despite touching tons of code in this refactoring
> effort, virtually zero unit tests were added. However the concern
> around API compatibility and lack of testing to show that it isn't
> broken are going to lead me to cast a -1 (binding veto). I am not
> inherently opposed to this work, but I am opposed to merging it in
> untested and without tests itself. We've previously discussed that
> test are a part of a feature being considered complete and ready for
> merge.
>
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-dev/201212.mbox/%3CCAKprHVbdcm1Ot2v%3DH8zCHmHhgX5iS3OyoVgH8Vh7XOmXhmBX5w%40mail.gmail.com%3E

Mime
View raw message