Open Stack

2015-03-16 9:48 GMT+08:00 Alex Xu <soulxu at gmail.com>:

>
>
> 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
>

Submit a patch for devref https://review.openstack.org/164555  Let see
whether we can get agreement....


>
>
>>
>>         -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/b8974829/attachment.html>