Open Stack

On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400
> Oleg Bondarev <obondarev at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil <philip.day at hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction
>>> with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group
>>> assignment in Neutron as well.
>>>
>>
>> Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a
>> vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id)
>> and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that
>> instance will become a member of the specified groups.
>> Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is
>> now) seems completely unfair to me.
>
> One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups
> is supplied.
>
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial 
attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you 
specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the 
compute API added the 'default' security group to the request').

The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request 
so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now 
get a 400 error response.

Does this break API compatibility?  It seems this falls under the first 
bullet here [2], "A change such that a request which was successful 
before now results in an error response (unless the success reported 
previously was hiding an existing error condition)".  Does that caveat 
in parenthesis make this OK?

It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API 
for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected 
result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility 
concerns so I'm hesitant on this.

We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into.  I 
think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/
[2] 
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines#Generally_Not_Acceptable

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann