Open Stack

Andrew,

The stubs + deprecation warning is exactly the approach I believewe should
take for renaming/moving tasks.

If it was possible for a plugin to override a task, but preserve the fields
from the original task, we could avoid such scenarios. What I mean is that
if the following task:

- id: workloads_collector_add
  type: puppet
  version: 2.0.0
  groups: [primary-controller]
  required_for: [deploy_end]
  requires: [keystone, primary-keystone]
  parameters:
    puppet_manifest:
/etc/puppet/modules/osnailyfacter/modular/keystone/workloads_collector_add.pp
    puppet_modules: /etc/puppet/modules
    timeout: 1800

If we could override the groups field only, a plugin developer would not
need to copy and paste the dependencies and other parameters. But until
that works, we should effectively deprecate top level tasks whenever
possible.
On Mar 22, 2016 2:52 AM, "Andrew Woodward" <xarses at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've mocked up the change to implementation using the already landed
> changes to ceph as an example
>
> https://review.openstack.org/295571
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:44 PM Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We had originally planned for the FFEs for both fuel-openstack-tasks[1]
>> and fuel-remove-conflict-openstack to [2] to close on 3/20, This would have
>> placed them before changes that conflict with
>> fuel-refactor-osnailyfacter-for-puppet-master-compatibility [3].
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088297.html
>> [2]
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088298.html
>> [3]
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/089028.html
>>
>> However we found this morning that the changes from [2], and more of
>> issue [1] will result in further issues such as [4], where as the task
>> files move, any task that explicitly relied on it, now no longer is in the
>> same path.
>>
>> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/295170/
>>
>> Due to this newly identified issue with backwards comparability. It
>> appears that [4] shows that we have plugins using interfaces that we don't
>> have formal coverage for so If we introduce this set of changes, we will
>> cause breakage for plugins that use fuel's current tasks.
>>
>> From a deprecation standpoint we don't have a way to deal with this,
>> unless  fuel-openstack-tasks [1] lands after
>> fuel-refactor-osnailyfacter-for-puppet-master-compatibility [3]. In this
>> case we can take advantage of the class include stubs, leaving a copy in
>> the old location (osnailyfacter/modular/roles/compute.pp) pointing to the
>> new include location (include openstack_tasks::roles::compute) and adding a
>> warning for deprecation. The tasks includes in the new location
>> openstack_tasks/examples/roles/compute.pp would simply include the updated
>> class location w/o the warning.
>>
>> This would take care of [1] and it's review [5]
>>
>> [5] https://review.openstack.org/283332
>>
>> This still leaves [2] un-addressed, we still have 3 open CR for it:
>>
>> [6] Compute https://review.openstack.org/285567
>> [7] Cinder https://review.openstack.org/294736
>> [8] Swift https://review.openstack.org/294979
>>
>> Compute [6] is in good shape, while Cinder [7] and Swift [8] are not. For
>> these do we want to continue to land them, if so what do we want to do
>> about the now deprecated openstack:: tasks? We could leave them in place
>> with a warning since we would not be using them
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>>
>> Andrew Woodward
>>
>> Mirantis
>>
>> Fuel Community Ambassador
>>
>> Ceph Community
>>
> --
>
> --
>
> Andrew Woodward
>
> Mirantis
>
> Fuel Community Ambassador
>
> Ceph Community
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20160322/6cf4ea2d/attachment.html>