[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Rename tenant to project: discussion
dariusz.smigiel at intel.com
Thu Dec 3 18:25:16 UTC 2015
Hey Neutrinos (thanks armax for this word :),
Keystone is planning to deprecate V2 API (again :). This time in Mitaka , and probably forever. It will stay at least four releases, but we need to decide, how to conquer problem of renaming...
And more important: consider if it's a problem for Neutron?
I'm looking at blueprint  about renaming all occurrences of 'tenant' to 'project', and trying to find out all the details.
First attempt to solve this problem was raised in November 2013  but unfortunately, no one finished it. Although Keystone V3 API is already supported in Neutron client , there are still some unknowns about Neutron server side. Monty Taylor is trying to address necessary (if any) changes .
I've focused on two projects: python-neutronclient and neutron.
grep found 429 occurrences of 'tenant' in Client while Server has 3021 of it. Some of them are just documentation and docstrings, but there are a lot of places, where variables are tangled: defined in DB, used in server, accessed by client. Most of places are just internal usages. The only thing where I've found 'public' information about tenants is 'help' command in neutron client.
Suggested plan for conquer:
1. First step would be to deal with neutronclient. It's much smaller amount of code to look through, update all places and be successful :)
2. Bigger challenge will be to change server side code. I'd suggest to start with renaming db columns. It affects a lot of places, so when finished should significantly lower number of remained "tenants".
3. Deal with all other places.
- variable names unification in OpenStack code base. Someone needs to start this job.
- one way to describe the same thing, instead of: tenant/account/project. Helpful, especially for newcomers.
- alignment with Keystone V3 API
- A. Lot. Of. Work.
- dealing with DB migrations
- about 2-4 weeks of work for every part of code. Additional, a lot of patchsets to be reviewed.
What do you think about this? About proposed way of dealing with all changes?
Is this change necessary?
Did I forget about something?
I'll be grateful for any kind of feedback.
Dariusz Smigiel (dasm)
Intel Technology Poland
More information about the OpenStack-dev