[openstack-dev] Suspected SPAM - Re: [vitrage] relationship_type in static_datasources

Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL) ifat.afek at nokia.com
Sun Aug 28 11:53:41 UTC 2016

Hi Yujun,

Regarding the validation – I agree that we should implement it in another way, but as a first stage I think you can just remove it. If you have some thoughts regarding the way to implement it, we will be happy to hear them. We thought about a yaml file per datasource, but didn’t design it yet.
BTW, did you notice the new API for template validation? https://github.com/openstack/vitrage/blob/master/doc/source/vitrage-api.rst#template-validate

Best regards,

From: "Weyl, Alexey (Nokia - IL)"
Date: Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 11:05

Hi Yujun,

In order for the static_physical to work for different datasources without the restrictions, you need to do the following changes:
Go to the static_physical transformer:

1.       Remove the methods: _register_relations_direction, _find_relation_direction_source.

2.       Add to the static_physical.yaml for each definition also a field for direction which will indicate the source and the destination between the datasources.

3.       In method: _create_neighbor, remove the usage of method _find_relation_direction_source, and use the new definition from the yaml file here to decide the edge direction.

Is it ok?

From: Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+zte at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 4:22 AM

Lost in the code...It seems the datasource just construct the entities and send them over event bus to entity graph processor. I need to dig further to find out the exact point the "backup" relationship is filtered.

I think we should some how keep the validation of relationship type. It is so easy to make typo when creating the template manually (I did this quite often...).

My idea is to delegate the validation to datasource instead of enumerating all constants it in evaluator. I think this will introduce better extensibility. Any comments?

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM Weyl, Alexey (Nokia - IL) <alexey.weyl at nokia.com<mailto:alexey.weyl at nokia.com>> wrote:
Hi Yujun,

You can find the names of the lables in the constants.py file.

In addition, the restriction on the physical_static datasource is done in it’s driver.py.


From: Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+zte at gmail.com<mailto:zhangyujun%2Bzte at gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:50 AM

Hi, Ifat,

I searched for edge_labels in the project. It seems it is validated only in `vitrage/evaluator/template_validation/template_syntax_validator.py`. Where is such restriction applied in static_datasources?


On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:19 PM Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL) <ifat.afek at nokia.com<mailto:ifat.afek at nokia.com>> wrote:
Hi Yujun,

Indeed, we have some restrictions on the relationship types that can be used in the static datasources. I think we should remove these restrictions, and allow any kind of relationship type.

Best regards,

From: Yujun Zhang
Date: Monday, 22 August 2016 at 08:37
I'm following the sample configuration in docs [1] to verify how static datasources works.

It seems `backup` relationship is not displayed in the entity graph view and neither is it included in topology show.

There is an enumeration for edge labels [2]. Should relationship in static datasource be limited to it?

[1] https://github.com/openstack/vitrage/blob/master/doc/source/static-physical-config.rst
[2] https://github.com/openstack/vitrage/blob/master/vitrage/common/constants.py#L49

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160828/59dbad38/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list