[openstack-dev] [heat] Remove deprecation properties
asalkeld at mirantis.com
Mon Jan 19 02:13:20 UTC 2015
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Sergey Kraynev <skraynev at mirantis.com>
> Steve, Thanks for the feedback.
> On 16 January 2015 at 15:09, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 01:52:43PM +0400, Sergey Kraynev wrote:
>> > Hi all.
>> > In the last time we got on review several patches, which removes old
>> > deprecation properties ,A
>> > and one mine .
>> > The aim is to delete deprecated code and redundant tests. It looks
>> > but the main problem, which we met, is backward compatibility.
>> > F.e. user has created resource (FIP) with old property schema, i.e.
>> > SUBNET_ID instead of SUBNET. On first look nothing bad will not
>> > because:
>> FWIW I think it's too soon to remove the Neutron subnet_id/network_id
>> properties, they were only deprecated in Juno , and it's evident that
>> users are still using them on icehouse 
>> I thought the normal deprecation cycle was at least two releases, but I
>> can't recall where I read that. Considering the overhead of maintaining
>> these is small, I'd favour leaning towards giving more time for users to
>> update their templates, rather then breaking them via very aggresive
>> removal of deprecated interfaces.
> Honestly I thought, that we use 1 release cycle, but I have not any
> objections to do it after two releases.
> Will be glad to know what is desired deprecation period.
>> I'd suggest some or all of the following:
>> - Add a "planned for removal in $release" to the SupportStatus string
>> associated with the deprecation, so we can document the planned removal.
>> - Wait for at least two releases between deprecation and removal, and
>> announce the interfaces which will be removed in the release notes for
>> the release before removal e.g:
>> - Deprecated in Juno
>> - Announce planned removal in Kilo release notes
>> - Remove in "J"
> I like this idea, IMO it will make our deprecation process clear.
>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82853/
>> > 1. handle_delete use resource_id and any changes in property schema
>> > not affect other actions.
>> > 2. If user want to use old template, he will get adequate error
>> > that this property is not presented in schema. After that he just
>> > switch to new property and update stack using this new property.
>> > In the same time we have one big issues for shadow dependencies,
>> which is
>> > actual for neutron resources. The simplest approach will not be
>> > , due to old properties was deleted from property_schema.
>> > Why is it bad ?
>> > - we will get again all bugs related with such dependencies.
>> > - how to make sure:A
>> > A A - create stack with old property (my template )
>> > A A - open horizon, and look on topology
>> > A A - download patch  and restart engine
>> > A A - reload horizon page with topology
>> > A A - as result it will be different
>> > A
>> > I have some ideas about how to solve this, but none of them is not
>> > good for me:
>> > A - getting such information from self.properties.data is bad,
>> because we
>> > will skip all validations mentioned in properties.__getitem__
>> > A - renaming old key in data to new or creating copy with new key is
>> > correct for me, because in this case we actually change properties
>> > (resource representation) invisibly from user.
>> > A - as possible we may leave old deprecated property and mark it
>> > like (removed), which will have similar behavior such as for
>> > implemented=False. I do not like it, because it means, that we never
>> > remove this "support code", because wants to be compatible with old
>> > resources. (User may be not very lazy to do simple update or
>> > else ...)
>> > - last way, which I have not tried yet, is usingA
>> > forA extraction necessary information.
>> > So now I have the questions:
>> > Should we support such case with backward compatibility?A
>> > If yes, how will be better to do it for us and user?
>> > May be we should create some strategy forA removingA A deprecated
>> > properties ?
>> Yeah, other than the process issues I mentioned above, Angus has pointed
>> out some technical challenges which may mean property removal breaks
>> existing stacks. IMHO this is something we *cannot* do - folks must be
>> able to upgrade heat over multiple versions without breaking their stacks.
>> As you say, delete may work, but it's likely several scenarios around
>> update will break if the stored stack definition doesn't match the schema
>> of the resource, and maintaining the internal references to removed or
>> obsolete properties doesn't seem like a good plan long term.
>> Could we provide some sort of migration tool, which re-writes the
>> definition of existing stacks (via a special patch stack update maybe?)
>> before upgrading heat?
> Yeah, I thought about it. Probably it's good solution for upgrading.
> However one thing stops me to start doing it right now:
> If we "upgrade" old resources and stored templates we will come
> to situation, when user's template and stored are different.
> And in this case user's template looks like invalid and can not be used
> without updating wrong properties.
> If we deal with it, I look forward to make this solution work.
Can't we change the property definition to be a migration function?
- It would not be visible to users (once deprecated)
- On loading the template, it would run the migration function that could
do a migration.
The question is it even possible to achieve technically? But it would be
that we could stay compatible for ever.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev