Hi folks! As a guy who was top 1 contributor to novaclient at some point, I tried to extend a validation at the client-side as much as possible. I mean, I really like the approach when the user sees a validation error in an ms (or a second depending on the system and plugins) without passing the auth and sending any request to API, so big +1 to leave enum of possible choices there. BUT I have one concern here: does it possible that the number of official policies will be extended or it becomes pluggable(without patching of nova code itself)? In this case, it would be nice to be a bit less strict. вт, 22 июн. 2021 г. в 20:51, Sean Mooney <smooney@redhat.com>:
On Tue, 2021-06-22 at 17:17 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2021-06-22 17:39:42 +0100 (+0100), Stephen Finucane wrote: [...]
Apparently someone has been relying on a bug in Nova to pass a different value to the API that what the schema should have allowed, and they are dismayed that the client no longer allows them to do this. [...]
I can't find where they explained what new policy they've implemented in their fork. Perhaps if they elaborated on the use case, it could be it's something the Nova maintainers would accept a patch to officially extend the API to incorporate, allowing that deployment to un-fork? my understandign is that they are trying to model fault domains an have a fault domain aware anti affintiy policy that use host-aggreate or azs to model the fault to doamin.
they reasched out to us downstream too about this and all i know so fart is they are implemetneign there own filter to do this which is valid. what is not valid ti extending a seperate api in this case the server group api to then use as an input to the out of tree filter.
if they had use a schduler hint which inteionally support out of tree hints or a flaovr extra spec then it would be fine. the use fo a custom server group policy whne the server groups is not a defiend public extion point is the soucce of the confilct.
the use case of an host aggrate anti affinti plicy while likely not efficent to implement is at leaset a somewhat resonable one that i could see supporting upstream. although there are many edgcases with regard to host being in mutliple host aggreates. if they are doing this based on avaiablity zone that is simler since a hsot can only be in one az.
in anycase it woudl be nice if they brought there usecase upstream or even downstream so we could find a more supprotable way to enable it.
-- Best regards, Andrey Kurilin.