Open Stack

On 7/2/20 2:23 AM, Radosław Piliszek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:31 PM Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/1/20 2:24 PM, Hongbin Lu wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> A short question. I saw a few projects are using the name 'ca_file'
>>> [1] as config option, while others are using 'cafile' [2]. I wonder
>>> what is the flavorite name convention?
>>>
>>> I asked this question because Kolla developer suggested Zun to rename
>>> from 'ca_file' to 'cafile' to avoid the confusion [3]. I want to
>>> confirm if this is a good idea from Keystone's perspective. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Hongbin
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=cfg.StrOpt%5C(%27ca_file%27&i=nope&files=&repos=
>>> [2]
>>> http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=cfg.StrOpt%5C(%27cafile%27&i=nope&files=&repos=
>>> [3] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/738329/
>>
>> Cinder and Glance both use ca_file (and ssl_ca_file and vmware_ca_file,
>> and registry_client_ca_file).
>>   From keystone_auth, we do also have cafile.
>>
>> Personally, I find the separation of ca_file to be much easier to read.
>>
>> Sean
>>
>>
> 
> Yeah, it was me to suggest the aliasing. We found that the 'cafile'
> seems more prevalent. We missed that underscore for Zun and scratched
> our heads "what are we doing wrong there?".

Sounds like a job for 
https://docs.openstack.org/oslo.config/latest/cli/validator.html ;-)

I don't have a strong opinion on which we should choose, but I will note 
that whichever it is, we can leave deprecated names for the other so 
nobody gets broken by the change.

Probably incomplete lists of references to both names:

http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=StrOpt%5C(%27ca_file%27&i=nope&files=&repos=
http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=StrOpt%5C(%27cafile%27&i=nope&files=&repos=

Unfortunately keystone and oslo.service differ, so no matter which we 
choose a lot of projects are going to inherit a deprecated opt.