[all][TC] OpenStack Client (OSC) vs python-*clients
abishop at redhat.com
Thu Aug 13 15:42:30 UTC 2020
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:27 AM Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-08-13 at 10:30 -0400, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 4:40 AM Luigi Toscano <ltoscano at redhat.com>
> > >
> > > On Monday, 10 August 2020 10:26:24 CEST Radosław Piliszek wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:19 AM Belmiro Moreira <
> > > >
> > > > moreira.belmiro.email.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > during the last PTG the TC discussed the problem of supporting
> > > > > clients (OpenStack Client - OSC vs python-*clients) .
> > > > > Currently, we don't have feature parity between the OSC and the
> > > > > python-*clients.
> > > >
> > > > Is it true of any client? I guess some are just OSC plugins 100%.
> > > > Do we know which clients have this disparity?
> > > > Personally, I encountered this with Glance the most and Cinder to
> > > > extent (but I believe over the course of action Cinder got all
> features I
> > > > wanted from it in the OSC).
> > >
> > > As far as I know there is still a huge problem with microversion
> > > which impacts some cinder features. It has been discussed in the past
> > > still present.
> > Yeah, my understanding is that osc will never "properly" support
> > microversions.
> it does already properly support micorversion the issue is not everyone
> on what properly means. the behavior of the project clients was considered
> by many. it has been poirpose that we explcity allow a way to opt in to
> the auto negociation
> via a new "auto" sentaial value and i have also suggested that we should
> tag each comman with the minium
> microversion that parmater or command requires and decault to that minium
> based on teh arges you passed.
> both of those imporvement dont break the philosipy of providing stable cli
> behavior across cloud and would
> imporve the ux. defaulting to the minium microversion needed for the
> arguments passed would solve most of the ux
> issues and adding an auto sentical would resolve the rest while still
> keeping the correct microversion behvior it
> already has.
> the glance and cinder gaps are not really related to microverions by the
> its just that no one has done the work and cinder an glance have not
> require contiuptors to update
Updates to osc from cinder's side are pretty much stalled due to lack of
support for microversions. A patch for that was rejected and we've had
trouble getting an update on a viable path forward. See comment in
> osc as part of adding new features. nova has not required that either but
> there were some who worked on nova
> that cared enough about osc to mention it in code review or submit patches
> themsevles. the glance team does
> not really have the resouces to do that and the osc team does not have the
> resouce to maintain clis for all teams.
> so over tiem as service poject added new feature the gaps have increase
> since there were not people tyring to keep it in
> > Openstacksdk is the future in that sense, and my
> > understanding is that the osc team is "porting" osc to use the sdk.
> > Given these two thing, when we (Nova) talked about this with the osc
> > folks, we decided that rather than catch up osc to python-novaclient,
> > we'd rather focus our efforts on the sdk.
> well that is not entirly a good caraterisation. we want to catch up osc too
> but the suggest was to support eveything in osc then it would be easier to
> add osc support
> since it just has to call the sdk functions. we did not say we dont want
> to close the gaps in osc.
> > I've been slowly doing that
> > , starting with the earlier Nova microversions. The eventual long
> > term goal is for the Nova team to *only* support the sdk, and drop
> > python-novaclient entirely, but that's a long time away.
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luigi
> > >
> > >
> > >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss