Open Stack

On 3/11/2014 5:11 PM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Matt Riedemann
> <mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> There was a bug reported today [1] that looks like a regression in this
>>>> new code, so we need people involved in this looking at it as soon as
>>>> possible because we have a proposed revert in case we need to yank it
>>>> out [2].
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1291014
>>>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bug/1291014,n,z
>>>
>>> Note that I have identified the source of the problem and am pushing a
>>> patch shortly with unit tests.
>>
>> My concern is how much else where assumes nova is working with the glance v2
>> API because there was a nova blueprint [1] to make nova work with the glance
>> V2 API but that never landed in Icehouse, so I'm worried about wack-a-mole
>> type problems here, especially since there is no tempest coverage for
>> testing multiple image location support via nova.
>>
>> [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/use-glance-v2-api
>
> As I mentioned in the bug comments, the code that made the assumption
> about glance v2 API actually landed in September 2012:
> https://review.openstack.org/13017
>
> The multiple image location patch simply made use of a method that was
> already there for more than a year.
>
> -DmitryB
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

Yeah, I pointed that out today in IRC also.

So kudos to Jay for getting a patch up quickly, and a really nice one at 
that with extensive test coverage.

What I'd like to see in Juno is a tempest test that covers the multiple 
image locations code since it seems we obviously don't have that today. 
  How hard is something like that with an API test?

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann