[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Rename tenant to project: discussion
armamig at gmail.com
Fri Dec 4 21:26:10 UTC 2015
On 4 December 2015 at 10:02, Kevin Benton <blak111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> So obviously the stuff in the client can be updated since most of that is
> user-facing. However, on the server side maybe we can start out by keeping
> all of the internal code and DB tables the same. Then all we need to worry
> about is the API translation code to start.
> Once our public-facing stuff is done, we can just start the transition to
> project_id internally at our own pace and in much less invasive chunks.
This plan is sensible, and kudos to Dariusz to take it on...this is no
small feat of engineering and it won't be the effort of a single...we're
all here to help. Let me state the obvious and remind that this is not a
mechanical search and replace effort. We gotta be extra careful to support
both terms in the process.
To sum it up I see the following steps:
1) Make or figure out how the server can talk to the v3 API - which is bug
1503428. If Monty is unable to tackle it soon, I am sure he'll be happy to
hand it back and Darius, perhaps, can take over
This will ensure that if for whatever reason v2 gets pulled out tomorrow
(not gonna happen, but still), we're not left high and dry. To achieve
this, I think we don't invasively need to change tenant id with project id,
but only where it's key to get/validate a token.
2) Start from the client to allow to handle both project_id and tenant_id.
The server must be enhanced to be able to convert project_id to tenant_id
on the fly. The change should be relatively limited in a few places, like
where the request come in. At this time nothing else is required to change
in the server.
3) Tackle the data model.
I wonder if we could leverage some sqlalchemy magic to support both
project_id and tenant_id in the db logic, seamlessly....something worth
investigating (zzzeek may be of help here). The sooner we start here, the
sooner we catch and fix breakages
4) Tackle the codebase sweep.
As for projects that use neutron and use the internal APIs, I can't see a
clean way of handling the bw compat if not by sprinkling decorators that
will take the signature of all the affected methods and convert the
tenant_id, but we could definitely explore how this would look like.
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Smigiel, Dariusz <
> dariusz.smigiel at intel.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> Is this change necessary?
>> Did I forget about something?
>> I'll be grateful for any kind of feedback.
>> Dariusz Smigiel (dasm)
>> Intel Technology Poland
>>  https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1503428
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> Kevin Benton
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev