Open Stack

On 27/08/13 19:20 +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 02:50:16PM +1000, Ian Wienand wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The current heat puppet modules don't work to create the heat config
>> file [1]
>>
>> My first attempt [2] created separate config files for each heat
>> component.  It was pointed out that configuration had been
>> consolidated into a single file [3].  My second attempt [4] did this,
>> but consensus seems to be lacking that this will work.
>
>So.. This change appears to have been poorly communicated, both within the
>team and the wider community, so my apologies for that.
>
>I would welcome feedback from the contributor of this change (and those who
>reviewed/approved it who probably understand this better than I do),
>however my understanding is the following:
>
>- The old per-service config files should still work for backwards
>  compatibility/transition
Yes they do (and will).

>
>- The new consolidated heat.conf file should work fine[1], and is recommended
>
>- If both old and new versions exist, the old ones seem to take precedence,
>  but (despite both versions existing in heat/master atm) this is not
>  recommended, and probably the root-cause of your issues?

Not really, it's that we need the wsgi options in a group.

>> As Mathieu alludes to, it does seem that there is a critical problem
>> with the single config file in that it is not possible to specify
>> separate bind_port's to individual daemons [5].  The current TOT
>> config files [6] don't seem to provide a clear example to work from?
>
>[1] except for this issue:
>
>Yes, it appears this issue needs fixing, using the consolidated config
>file, there's no way to specify per-service non-default options (but heat
>should still work fine using the default bind_host/bind_port/log_file)

I have a patch up that tries to deal with this:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43697/
(I might need to add config_file there too)

>
>I've raised a bug to track fixing this:
>
>https://launchpad.net/bugs/1217463

There is already this one:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/heat/+bug/1209141

>
>> What output should the puppet modules be producing?  Would it make
>> sense for them to create the multiple-configuration-file scenario for
>> now, and migrate to the single-configuration-file at some future
>> point; since presumably heat will remain backwards compatible for some
>> time?
>
>I think we should fix the bug above and they should create the new format,
>but if sticking with the multiple-configuration-file scenario allows you to
>progress in the short term, then that seems like a reasonable workaround.
>
>It seems we have the following tasks to complete from a Heat perspective:
>- Fix bug #1217463, in a backwards compatible way

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43697/

>- Update all the docs to reference the new config file
>- Discuss packaging impact with downstream packagers (particularly we'll
>  need to consider how upgrades should work..)
>- Remove the old config files from the heat master tree (there is a review
>  for this but it's currently abandoned:
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40257/)

- devstack support for the new heat.conf too.

>
>I hope this clarifies things a bit, please do let us know/raise bugs if you
>find things which are not working as expected while we work through this
>transition.

I'll try sort this out.

-Angus

>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve