Ospurge or "project purge" - What's the right approach to cleanup projects prior to deletion
ssbarnea at redhat.com
Wed Feb 3 12:07:04 UTC 2021
That reminded me of my old osclean
<https://github.com/ssbarnea/harem/blob/master/bin/osclean> bash script
which did some work in parallel, but I would see the purge as a very useful
On 2 Feb 2021 at 07:40:22, Adrian Turjak <adriant at catalystcloud.nz> wrote:
> OH! As someone who tried to champion project termination at the API layer
> as a community goal during the Berlin summit, I love that someone ran with
> our idea of implementing it in the SDK as a starting point!
> I still think we should champion a purge API for each service, but the SDK
> is definitely the place to handle dependencies, and I love that you are
> doing it in threads!
> I'd be happy to review/test any code related to this both in the OSC and
> the SDK. I sadly haven't had time to help implement anything like this, but
> I will somehow find the time to review/test! And I look forward to one day
> throwing away our internal termination logic in favor of what's in the SDK!
> On 20/01/21 2:16 am, Artem Goncharov wrote:
> Hi Christian.
> Actually the patch stuck due to lack of reviewers. Idea here was not to
> replace “openstack project purge”, but to add a totally new implementation
> (hopefully later dropping project purge as such). From my POV at the moment
> there is nothing else I was thinking to mandatorily implement on OSC side
> (sure, for future I would like to give possibility to limit services to
> cleanup, to add cleanup of key-airs, etc). SDK part is completely
> independent of that. Here we definitely need to add dropping of private
> images. Also on DNS side we can do cleanup. Other services are tricky
> (while swift we can still implement relatively easy).
> All in all - we can merge the PR in it’s current form (assuming we get
> some positive reviews).
> On 19. Jan 2021, at 13:33, Christian Rohmann <christian.rohmann at inovex.de>
> Hey Artem,
> thank you very much for your quick reply and pointer to the patchset you
> work on!
> On 18/01/2021 20:14, Artem Goncharov wrote:
> Ha, thats exactly the case, the whole logic sits in sdk and is spread
> across the supported services:
> https://opendev.org/openstack/openstacksdk/src/branch/master/openstack/compute/v2/_proxy.py#L1798 -
> for compute. KeyPairs not dropped, since they belong to user, and not to
> the “project”;
> https://opendev.org/openstack/openstacksdk/src/branch/master/openstack/block_storage/v3/_proxy.py#L547 -
> block storage;
> https://opendev.org/openstack/openstacksdk/src/branch/master/openstack/network/v2/_proxy.py#L4130 -
> the most complex one in order to give possibility to clean “old” resource
> without destroying everything else
> Adding image is few lines of code (never had enough time to add it),
> identity is a bit tricky, since also here mostly resources does not belong
> to Project. DNS would be also easy to do. OSC here is only providing I/F,
> while the logic sits in SDK and can be very easy extended for other
> On 18. Jan 2021, at 19:52, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> wrote:
> On 1/18/21 6:56 PM, Artem Goncharov wrote:
> What do you mean it doesn’t implement anything at all? It does clean up
> compute, network, block_storage, orchestrate resources. Moreover it gives
> you possibility to clean “old” resources (created before or last updated
> Oh really? With that few lines of code? I'll re-read the patch then,
> sorry for my bad assumptions.
> Can you point at the part that's actually deleting the resources?
> If I understood correctly, the cleanup relies on the SDK functionality /
> requirement for each resource type to provide a corresponding function(
> Reading through the (SDK) code this even covers depending resources, nice!
> I certainly will leave some feedback and comments in your change (
> But what are your immediate plans moving forward on with this then, Artem?
> There is a little todo list in the description on your change .. is there
> anything you yourself know that is still missing before taking this to a
> full review and finally merging it?
> Only code that is shipped and then actively used will improve further and
> people will notice other required functionality or switches for later
> iterations. With the current state of having a somewhat working but
> unmaintained ospurge and a non feature complete "project purge" (supports
> only Block Storage v1, v2; Compute v2; Image v1, v2) this will only cause
> people to start hacking away on the ospurge codebase or worse building
> their own tools and scripts to implement project cleanup for their
> environments over and over again.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss