[openstack-dev] [Nova] Some thoughts on API microversions
ghanshyam.mann at nectechnologies.in
Tue Aug 9 04:56:20 UTC 2016
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:andrew at lascii.com]
> Sent: 04 August 2016 22:18
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Some thoughts on API microversions
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016, at 08:20 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > On 08/03/2016 08:54 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> > > I've brought some of these thoughts up a few times in conversations
> > > where the Nova team is trying to decide if a particular change
> > > warrants a microversion. I'm sure I've annoyed some people by this
> > > point because it wasn't germane to those discussions. So I'll lay
> > > this out in it's own thread.
> > >
> > > I am a fan of microversions. I think they work wonderfully to
> > > express when a resource representation changes, or when different
> > > data is required in a request. This allows clients to make the same
> > > request across multiple clouds and expect the exact same response
> > > format, assuming those clouds support that particular microversion.
> > > I also think they work well to express that a new resource is
> > > available. However I do think think they have some shortcomings in
> > > expressing that a resource has been removed. But in short I think
> > > microversions work great for expressing that there have been changes
> > > to the structure and format of the API.
> > >
> > > I think microversions are being overused as a signal for other types
> > > of changes in the API because they are the only tool we have
> > > available. The most recent example is a proposal to allow the
> > > revert_resize API call to work when a resizing instance ends up in
> > > an error state. I consider microversions to be problematic for
> > > changes like that because we end up in one of two situations:
> > >
> > > 1. The microversion is a signal that the API now supports this
> > > action, but users can perform the action at any microversion. What
> > > this really indicates is that the deployment being queried has
> > > upgraded to a certain point and has a new capability. The structure
> > > and format of the API have not changed so an API microversion is the
> > > wrong tool here. And the expected use of a microversion, in my
> > > opinion, is to demarcate that the API is now different at this particular
> > >
> > > 2. The microversion is a signal that the API now supports this
> > > action, and users are restricted to using it only on or after that
> > > In many cases this is an artificial constraint placed just to
> > > satisfy the expectation that the API does not change before the
> > > But the reality is that if the API change was exposed to every
> > > microversion it does not affect the ability I lauded above of a
> > > client being able to send the same request and receive the same
> > > response from disparate clouds. In other words exposing the new
> > > action for all microversions does not affect the interoperability
> > > story of Nova which is the real use case for microversions. I do
> > > recognize that the situation may be more nuanced and constraining
> > > the action to specific microversions may be necessary, but that's not
> always true.
> > >
> > > In case 1 above I think we could find a better way to do this. And I
> > > don't think we should do case 2, though there may be special cases
> > > that warrant it.
> > >
> > > As possible alternate signalling methods I would like to propose the
> > > following for consideration:
> > >
> > > Exposing capabilities that a user is allowed to use. This has been
> > > discussed before and there is general agreement that this is
> > > something we would like in Nova. Capabilities will programatically
> > > inform users that a new action has been added or an existing action
> > > can be performed in more cases, like revert_resize. With that in
> > > place we can avoid the ambiguous use of microversions to do that. In
> > > the meantime I would like the team to consider not using
> > > microversions for this case. We have enough of them being added that
> > > I think for now we could just wait for the next microversion after a
> > > capability is added and document the new capability there.
> > The problem with this approach is that the capability add isn't on a
> > microversion boundary, as long as we continue to believe that we want
> > to support CD deployments this means people can deploy code with the
> > behavior change, that's not documented or signaled any way.
> The fact that the capability add isn't on a microversion boundary is exactly my
> point. There's no need for it to be in many cases. But it would only apply for
> capability adds which don't affect the interoperability of multiple
> The signaling would come from the ability to query the capabilities listing. A
> change in what that listing returns indicates a behavior change.
> Another reason I like the above mechanism is that it handles differences in
> policy better as well. As much as we say that two clouds with the same
> microversions available should accept the same requests and return the
> same responses that's not actually true due to policy checks. I know we
> discussed removing the ability to modify the response based on policy so I'm
> not referring to that. What I mean is that a full action could be disabled for a
> user. In this situation the microversion is useless because it can't signal this
> behavior to the user, while a capabilities list could.
Discoverable Capabilities for resources are really nice thing and will solve lot of
question which user always ask when in trouble or want to go for advance processing.
I too believe that microversion is a great Communication Channel for structural and behaviour changes both.
User mainly ask below question:
- When this API changed (structural way either request or response) -1. I want this... 2. no I want my cloud to exclude this for some time...
- When behaviour is changed - 1. I want this... 2. no I want my cloud to exclude this for some time...
- When this API/feature removed - 1. I want this... 2. no I want my cloud to exclude this for some time...
- When this new feature available - 1. I want this... 2. no I want my cloud to exclude this for some time...
Ideally there should be single source/channel to answer those. If as a user I need to research/loop from what all different places/channel/way I need to get those answer then, it's not good.
I think microversion is the key channel here which should answer all those query coming statically or dynamically (from app developers etc).
For me microversion is not just for interoperability use case but also a singling mechanism even there is no such changes which break any user usage or interoperability.
What I am trying to say here is we should have a *single* channel which should provide all those information to user. If we have multiple way of discover structural or behavioural changes then,
it is always difficult for users.
Also microversion representation in doc etc can be improved as nested doc or dynamic discovery of all microversion with JSON-HOME etc.
For this revert_resize case, User may have some workaround or some sort of script to handle this for end user -
1. It's in error, we cannot do anything. Go and create new on.
2. It's in error state, you can retry this. (in background, delete old and create new one with new configuration)
3. Ok, it's in error, we can revert it (in background, deleting old one and creating new one with old configuration)
So if we do provide this change with microversion then they are very well communicated and people can get rid of their workaround etc.
I feel microversion is better for such behaviour changes which makes great use case for users. And the combination of microversion and capabilities gives very clear communication to users.
> > A microversion is communication of change that is accessible all the
> > way to the end user (and is currently our only communication channel
> > for that). There are definitely gray areas here, in which case you are
> > deciding whether you over communicate (put in a microversion just in
> > case it turns out to be significant from programming perspective) or
> > under communicate, bunch things up and figure no one will really mind.
> > When we have discoverable capabilities infrastructure, we can probably
> > move some of these to that. But currently we don't have that. And
> > until we do, version numbers are cheap.
> I agree that version numbers are cheap. My contention is that their signal is
> unclear because they can mean almost anything.
> > > Secondly we could consider some indicator that exposes how new the
> > > code in a deployment is. Rather than using microversions as a proxy
> > > to indicate that a deployment has hit a certain point perhaps there
> > > could be a header that indicates the date of the last commit in that code.
> > > That's not an ideal way to implement it but hopefully it makes it
> > > clear what I'm suggesting. Some marker that a user can use to
> > > determine that a new behavior is to be expected, but not one that's
> > > more intended to signal structural API changes.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > I think we're going to get a ton of push back from people on this.
> > When we first rolled out microversions I got a number of people asking
> > if they could hide the supported microversions, because it gave some
> > indication of the code level on the server (like people hide apache
> > version in production). Which entirely missed the point of the
> > infrastructure. I can't see folks allowing this in. Plus this is git,
> > and people have local patches, so I'm not sure there is any meaningful
> > concept here to expose.
> There may not be anything meaningful to expose. I realize it's far from trivial
> to implement something like that and I don't think using git is a good Idea it
> was purely for illustration.
> It's fair to say that information of this nature may be too sensitive to expose,
> though we are actually exposing it coarsely with microversions.
> > I'm on board with a future where we have the monotonically increasing
> > microversions, as well as a side channel of discoverable capabilities.
> > But I think the moment you try to introduce a 3rd communication
> > channel for behavior, which has something looking like a version
> > number, it actually becomes way too confusing from a consumption point
> > of view. And it also breaks one of the things we were trying to do,
> > which is guaruntee old behavior (as much as possible) on old API versions.
> This gets to the point I'm trying to make. We don't guarantee old behavior in
> all cases at which point users can no longer rely on microversions to signal
> non breaking changes. And where we do guarantee old behavior sometimes
> we do it artificially because the only signal we have is microversions and
> that's the contract we're trying to adhere to.
> > I think that if we put some code version into place, we'll just assume
> > we can use that to signal changes, and stop realizing how disruptive
> > it is to make those changes for existing users.
> I already think we're not thinking enough about making those disruptive
> changes because microversions are cheap and don't have a clear definition. I
> personally have not encountered a situation we're we've said no to a change
> because we can't be clear how disruptive it is. We just say we'll add a
> microversion and move on.
> And just to be clear, I am completely in support of some of those more
> disruptive changes because there are very valid reasons for them. But when
> the range of what a microversion can represent is a new field on instance all
> the way to a complete resource tree in the API has been removed across all
> microversions I'm not sure we're helping users as much as we think.
> > -Sean
> > --
> > Sean Dague
> > http://dague.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
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-
> request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev