Open Stack

Reply in-line.

Thanks for raising this discussion Steve!

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:27 AM Wang, Jerry A <jerry.a.wang at intel.com>
wrote:

>
> Hi Steve:
>
> Thanks for your great efforts for WSME replacement.
>
> I had a quick review for your code changes, see my comments below:
>
> Review
> Feedback
> Reason
> 704490
> Has concern
> move wsme code to ironic, types.py
> 704487
> Has concern
> move wsme code to ironic, node.py
> 704489
> has concern
> move wsme code to ironic, args.py
> 704486
> has concern
> move wsme code to ironic expose.py
> 703898
> Both positive and concern
> Positive, better code structure than original code, concern, more
> difficult to locate WSME code
> 704488
> has concern
> move wsme code to ironic
> 704485
> has concern
> Add pecan code, pecan would be replaced by flask
> 703897
> Positive
> Removed some WSME code with this change
> 703723
> Positive
> Removed some WSME code with this change
> 703695
> Positive
> Removed some WSME code with this change
>
> Firstly, I appreciated 3 changes which definately removed some wsme code,
> especially the change 703897.
>
> But I have some concerns for changes 704490, 704487, 704489, ...,  these
> changes seemed move WSME code into ironic, that would make ironic code base
> become a bit large, from my personal view, to use python built-in feature
> or other 3-party lib to replace WSME function would be better.  I like the
> way that code change 703897 did.
>
>
I guess I have two concerns.

1) Attribution and detailing the original source and licensing since the
import of code does seem to meet the word "substantial", least to my
perception.
2) I share the concern of importing code into ironic, and even adding
substantial amount of code that we would need to potentially maintain. If
my memory is recalling correctly, we wanted to move away from WSME in order
to reduce maintenance overhead since it is not being actively developed.

In the grand scheme of the universe, I am for us achieving our goals, and
if built-in tooling  or another third party library does not meet our
needs, then I feel like it makes sense.


> Thanks
> Jerry
>
> 发自我的iPhone
>
> 在 2020年1月30日，上午8:53，Steve Baker <sbaker at redhat.com> 写道：
>
> I've put together a set of changes for removing WSME which involves
> copying just enough of it into ironic, and I think we need to have the
> conversation about whether this approach is desirable :) This git branch[1]
> finishes with WSME removed and existing tests passing.
>
> Here are some stats about lines of code (not including unit tests,
> calculated with cloc):
>
> 4500 wsme/wsme
>
> 6000 ironic/ironic/api master
>
> 7000 ironic/ironic/api story/1651346
>
> In words, we need 1000 out of 4500 lines of WSME source in order to
> support 6000 lines of ironic specific API code.
>
> Switching to a replacement for WSME would likely touch a good proportion
> of that 6000 lines of ironic specific API code. If we eventually replace it
> with a new library I think it would be easier if the thing being replaced
> is inside the ironic source tree to allow for a gradual transition. So this
> approach could be an end in itself, or it could be a step towards the final
> goal.
>
> My strategy for copying in code was to pull in chunks of required logic
> while removing some unused features (like request pass-through and date &
> time type serialization). I also replaced py2/3 patterns with pure py3.
> There is likely further things which can be removed or refactored for
> simplicity, but what exists currently works.
>
> If there is enough positive feedback for this approach I'll start on unit
> test coverage for the new code.
>
> [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:story/1651346
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200131/13ed778f/attachment.html>