Open Stack

2015-03-13 19:10 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague <sean at dague.net>:

> On 03/13/2015 02:55 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 03/12/2015 02:03 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I'm having an issue with microversions.
> >>>
> >>> The api_version() code has a comment saying "This decorator MUST appear
> >>> first (the outermost decorator) on an API method for it to work
> >>> correctly"
> >>>
> >>> I tried making a microversioned static class method like this:
> >>>
> >>>      @wsgi.Controller.api_version("2.4")  # noqa
> >>>      @staticmethod
> >>>      def _my_func(req, foo):
> >>>
> >>> and pycharm highlighted the api_version decorator and complained that
> >>> "This decorator will not receive a callable it may expect; the built-in
> >>> decorator returns a special object."
> >>>
> >>> Is this a spurious warning from pycharm?  The pep8 checks don't
> >>> complain.
> >>>
> >>> If I don't make it static, then pycharm suggests that the method could
> >>> be static.
> >>
> >> *API method*
> >>
> >> This is not intended for use by methods below the top controller level.
> >> If you want conditionals lower down in your call stack pull the request
> >> version out yourself and use that.
> >
> > Both the original spec and doc/source/devref/api_microversions.rst
> > contain text talking about decorating a private method.  The latter
> > gives this example:
> >
> >     @api_version("2.1", "2.4")
> >     def _version_specific_func(self, req, arg1):
> >         pass
> >
> >     @api_version(min_version="2.5") #noqa
> >     def _version_specific_func(self, req, arg1):
> >         pass
> >
> >     def show(self, req, id):
> >         .... common stuff ....
> >         self._version_specific_func(req, "foo")
> >         .... common stuff ....
> >
> > It's entirely possible that such a private method might not need to
> > reference "self", and could therefore be static, so I think it's a valid
> > question.
>
> That's a doc bug, we should change it.
>


Actually it is not a bug. It's controversial point in the spec, but finally
that was keep in the spec.
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/kilo/approved/api-microversions.html

The discussion at line 268
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127127/7/specs/kilo/approved/api-microversions.rst


>
>         -Sean
>
> --
> Sean Dague
> http://dague.net
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150316/46588e33/attachment.html>