Open Stack

Thanks for summing this up.

We’ve already merged the client patch so I believe we should merge the dashboard one as well, to keep things consistent among GUI and CLI. Anyway your concerns are as relevant for dashboard as they are for client.

Keeping dependency graph visibility consistent (i.e. forbidding to change visibility of a dependency or at least handling it in some reasonable fashion) right now seems like a very difficult task, but we might be able to do so during migration towards glare-based backend (i.e. this https://github.com/openstack/murano-specs/blob/master/specs/liberty/artifact-repository-support.rst spec). I believe it would require some thought and some input from the artifacts team as well. One place we can do this is on our weekly meeting.
btw, my suggestion is to file a bp for your bug, since it feels like a feature of considerable size to me, what do you think?

-- 
Kirill Zaitsev
Murano team
Software Engineer
Mirantis, Inc

On 4 November 2015 at 15:28:27, Olivier Lemasle (olivier.lemasle at apalia.net) wrote:

Hi all,

Ekaterina Chernova suggested last week to discuss the matter of
visibility consistency for murano packages and glance images,
following my bug report on that subject [1].

The general idea is to make sure that if a murano package is public,
it should be really available for all projects, which mean that:
- if it depends on other murano packages, these packages must be public,
- if it depends on glance images, these images must be public.

In fact, I created this bug report after Alexander Tivelkov's
suggesion on a review request [2] I did to fix a related bug [3]. In
this other bug report, I focused on images visibility during the
initial import of a package, because dependant murano packages are
already imported with the same visibility. It seemed to me most
confusing that packages are made public if the images are private. So
I did a fix in murano-dashboard, which is already merged [4], and
another one for python-muranoclient, still in review ([2]).

What are your thoughts on this subject? Do we need to address first
the general dependency issue? Is this a murano, glance or glare
subject?

Do we still need to do something specific for the initial import
(currently, dependency resolution for packages and images is done both
in murano-dashboard and in python-muranoclient)?

Thank you for your inputs,

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bug/1509208
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/236834/
[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/murano/+bug/1507139
[4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/236830/

--  
Olivier Lemasle
Software Engineer
Apalia™
Mobile: +33-611-69-12-11
http://www.apalia.net
olivier.lemasle at apalia.net

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
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/20151110/369545a5/attachment.html>