Open Stack

On 20/07/2016 15:13, Rob Cresswell wrote:
> Yes, it would mean changing your requirements after a release. So, for
> example you might run two gate tests:
>
> - A voting Horizon-stable/milestone test, (or both)
> - A non-voting Horizon-master test
>
> That gives you a lot of control over making your tests passing (multiple
> patches to make the Horizon-master test pass, or all in one patch set
> alongside the horizon-milestone test bump), rather than random failures
> each week. You'd still be able to track the failures as they come in,
> but they won't break your gate each time.

I don't want control, I want to consume a library in a standard way -
the way we consume libraries from the rest of openstack.

> I don't think where horizon (the library) lives would change how you
> version against it. We don't currently have any plans to separate the
> two; while we realise its a desirable change, weighing the work and risk
> involved in the split architecture vs the end result, we've chosen to
> work on other higher priority items for now (performance, filtering
> improvements, angular work etc.)

Well, if would stop us having a reference to git branch in our
requirements, and allow to use the standard global requirements
process to manage the dependency.

It also means that as a plugin I know that the released version of
my plugin has been tested in my gate with the exact version of the
code that the horizon team release.

We can still do multiple patches to fix any changes in the horizon
library, and in the tip of the chain update the version in requirements.

The risk has just been moved to the plugins, which is not ideal.

It also makes downstream consumption *a lot* easier.

>
>
> On 20 July 2016 at 13:38, Hayes, Graham <graham.hayes at hpe.com
> <mailto:graham.hayes at hpe.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 20/07/2016 10:16, Rob Cresswell wrote:
>     > Hey all,
>     >
>     > So we've had a few issues with plugin stability recently, and its
>     > apparent that many plugins are building off Horizon master as a
>     > dependency. I would really advise against this. A more manageable
>     > development process may be to:
>     >
>     > - Base stable plugins against a stable release of Horizon
>     > - Base WIP versions/new plugins off the last Horizon milestone, b2 in
>     > this case, and then bump the version and capture issues within the same
>     > patch. This should prevent random breakages, and should allow you to
>     > just look at the release notes for that milestone.
>
>     So this would mean changing tox.ini or requirements files after each
>     horizon release?
>
>     This dovetails nicely with the other thread about how we should be doing
>     cross project interactions.
>
>     What would be best, would be having horizon released as a separate
>     library on pypi like the clients and oslo libs.
>
>     Then openstack-dashboard, and all the plugins could rely on the same
>     base library, without hacks like:
>
>        deps =
>          -r{toxinidir}/requirements.txt
>          -r{toxinidir}/test-requirements.txt
>          http://tarballs.openstack.org/horizon/horizon-master.tar.gz
>
>     in tox.ini or
>
>        # Testing Requirements
>
>      http://tarballs.openstack.org/horizon/horizon-master.tar.gz#egg=horizon
>
>     in (test-)requirements.txt
>
>     Is that on roadmap?
>
>     > On the Horizon side, we've moved our FF a week earlier, so I think that
>     > week combined with the usual RC period should be enough time to fix
>     > bugs. We'll aim to make sure our release notes are complete with regards
>     > to breaking issues for plugins, and deprecate appropriately.
>     >
>     > Rob
>
>
>     __________________________________________________________________________
>     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>     Unsubscribe:
>     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>