Open Stack

Renat,

I want to avoid having to explicitly import the mistral.config module in
order to have configuration loaded properly.  The problem with the way
mistral.config is coded is that we have to use importutils otherwise we get
pep8 error if we simply insert "from mistral import config".  An example at
https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/engine/__init__.py#L29.
 This seems to be a chore when it comes down to writing tests where the
mistral.config is not necessary loaded (whereas the launch script registers
the configuration because the parse_args function in mistral.config is
called and the problem isn't as apparent).  So we see the
importutils.import_module('mistral.config') scattered in multiple tests.

My initial patchset has all the configurations under mistral.config but I
have them separated into different methods.  The
tools/config/generate_sample.sh expects the options to be at top level in
the module.  I also looked at a few other OpenStack projects for reference
(i.e. nova, ceilometer, oslo.messaging) and then in the latest patchset
moved them closer to the modules where they are needed thinking this may be
more consistent with other projects.

I can certainly revisit this and explore an alternate way to keep these
config together and avoid the importutils problem.  This may be minor but I
want to take care of this clean up before we hit the ground running with
juno related bps.

Winson



On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Renat Akhmerov <rakhmerov at mirantis.com>wrote:

> I tend to disagree with the whole idea. Not sure 100% though yet. Could
> you please explain the point of scattering configuration all over the code?
> In my opinion, we’re mixing different application concerns. With the
> current approach I always know where to look at in order to find all my
> configuration option definitions (types, descriptions etc.) but with this
> refactoring it seems to be a tricky task.
>
> Thoughts? What benefits of doing that?
>
> Renat Akhmerov
> @ Mirantis Inc.
>
>
>
> On 16 May 2014, at 21:32, Dmitri Zimine <dz at stackstorm.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for breaking down the configuration by modules.
>
> Not sure about names for configuration group. Do you mean just using the
> same group name? or more?
>
> IMO groups are project specific; it doesn’t always make sense to use the
> same group name in the context of different projects. Our requirement is 1)
> auto-generate mistral.conf.example from the config.py and 2) sections make
> sense in the product context.
>
> For example: how do we deal with rpc_backend and transport_url for oslo
> messaging? Should we do something like CONF.import(_transport_opts,
> “oslo.messaging.transport”, “transport”)? And use it by passing the group,
> not entire contfig, like:
>
> transport = messaging.get_transport(cfg.messaging.CONF)
> instead of
> transport = messaging.get_transport(cfg.CONF)
>
> DZ>
>
>
> On May 16, 2014, at 12:46 PM, W Chan <m4d.coder at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Regarding config opts for keystone, the keystoneclient middleware already
> registers the opts at
> https://github.com/openstack/python-keystoneclient/blob/master/keystoneclient/middleware/auth_token.py#L325under a keystone_authtoken group in the config file.  Currently, Mistral
> registers the opts again at
> https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/config.py#L108under a different configuration group.  Should we remove the duplicate from
> Mistral and refactor the reference to keystone configurations to the
> keystone_authtoken group?  This seems more consistent.
>
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:13 PM, W Chan <m4d.coder at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently, the various configurations are registered in
>> ./mistral/config.py.  The configurations are registered when mistral.config
>> is referenced.  Given the way the code is written, PEP8 throws referenced
>> but not used error if mistral.config is referenced but not called in the
>> module.  In various use cases, this is avoided by using importutils to
>> import mistral.config (i.e.
>> https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/tests/unit/engine/test_transport.py#L34).
>>  I want to break down registration code in ./mistral/config.py into
>> separate functions for api, engine, db, etc and move the registration
>> closer to the module where the configuration is needed.  Any objections?
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140522/f92b2bf8/attachment.html>