Open Stack

On Monday, 19 August 2019 19:17:08 CEST Ben Nemec wrote:
> On 8/19/19 7:46 AM, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> > Sorry for replying the old mail, and please cc me when reply.
> > 
> > Matt Riedemann <mriedemos at gmail.com> writes:
> >> This is a follow up to a dev ML email [1] where I noticed that some
> >> implementations of the upgrade-checkers goal were failing because some
> >> projects still use the oslo_i18n.enable_lazy() hook for lazy log message
> >> translation (and maybe API responses?).
> >> 
> >> The very old blueprints related to this can be found here [2][3][4].
> >> 
> >> If memory serves me correctly from my time working at IBM on this, this
> >> was needed to:
> >> 
> >> 1. Generate logs translated in other languages.
> >> 
> >> 2. Return REST API responses if the "Accept-Language" header was used
> >> and a suitable translation existed for that language.
> >> 
> >> #1 is a dead horse since I think at least the Ocata summit when we
> >> agreed to no longer translate logs since no one used them.
> >> 
> >> #2 is probably something no one knows about. I can't find end-user
> >> documentation about it anywhere. It's not tested and therefore I have no
> >> idea if it actually works anymore.
> >> 
> >> I would like to (1) deprecate the oslo_i18n.enable_lazy() function so
> >> new projects don't use it and (2) start removing the enable_lazy() usage
> >> from existing projects like keystone, glance and cinder.
> >> 
> >> Are there any users, deployments or vendor distributions that still rely
> >> on this feature? If so, please speak up now.
> > 
> > I was pointed to this discussion when I tried to fix this feature in
> > keystone, https://review.opendev.org/677117
> > 
> > For #2 translated API response, this feature probably hasn't been
> > working for some time, but it's still a valid user case.
> > 
> > Has the decision been settled?
> 
> Not to my knowledge. Lazy translation still exists, but I don't know
> that anyone is testing it.
> 
> Are you saying that you are using this feature now, or are you
> interested in using it going forward?

A related note: we nuked enable_lazy in sahara because it broke Python 3 
support in mysterious ways:

https://review.opendev.org/#/c/626643/

-- 
Luigi