Open Stack

On Thu, 2022-11-24 at 12:17 +0000, Stephen Finucane wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 14:44 +0000, Sean Mooney wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 14:11 +0000, Stephen Finucane wrote:
> > > 👋
> > > 
> > > tl;dr: $subject
> > > 
> > > I reviewed a patch against openstackclient (OSC) today [1] and left a rather
> > > lengthy comment that I thought worthy of bringing up to a wider audience. The
> > > patch itself doesn't matter so much as what is was trying to achieve, namely
> > > modifying an existing OSC command to better match the structure of the
> > > equivalent legacy client command. The review provides more detail than I do here
> > > but the tl;dr: is that this is a big no-no and OSC will and must maintain
> > > consistency between OSC commands over consistency with legacy clients. As I
> > > noted in the review, consistency is one of the biggest advantages of OSC over
> > > the legacy clients: if you know the name of the resource type you wish to work
> > > with, you can pretty accurately guess the command and its structure. This is a
> > > thing that operators have consistently said they love about OSC and its one of
> > > the key reasons we're trying to get every command to provide full current API
> > > implementations in OSC (and SDK).
> > > 
> > > Now I get that the way some of these consistent commands have been implemented
> > > has been the cause of contention in the past. I don't imagine it remains any
> > > less contentious today. However, these patterns are well-understood, well-known
> > > patterns that have for the most part worked just fine for close to a decade now.
> > > The kind of patterns I'm thinking about include:
> > > 
> > >  * The command to create a new resource should always take the format
> > >  '<resource> create <human-readable identifer>
> > >  * The command to modify some property of a resource should always take the
> > >  format '<resource> set --property=value <name-or-identifier>'
> > >  * The command to list, fetch or delete resources should always take the format
> > >  '<resource> list', '<resource> get <name-or-identifier>', and '<resource>
> > >  delete <name-or-identifier>', respectively.
> > you have listed '<resource> get <name-or-identifier>' to fetch a resouce but in my experince
> > "show" is the more common action 
> > 
> > openstack server show <name-or-identifier>
> > openstack image show <name-or-identifier>
> > openstack volume show <name-or-identifier>
> > 
> > also network and port and subnet baiscaly all the resouce form the core services
> > 
> > get does not really seam to be used.
> 
> Whoops, typo. '<resource> show <name-or-identifier>' is what I meant.
> 
> > >  * Boolean options should always take the form of flags with an alternate
> > >  negative option like '--flag' and '--no-flag', rather than '--
> > >  flag=<true|false>'
> > i personally dont like this but i agree with being consitant. i strongly
> > prefer the 
> > '--flag=<true|false>' approch as something that is more readble 
> > but its not the pattern in use in osc. i would prefer to keep things consitent
> > then change this at this point.
> > 
> > >  * And a couple of other things that we tend to highlight in reviews.
> > > 
> > > We want to preserve this behavior, lest OSC lose this huge USP and devolve
> > > into
> > > a muddle mess of different ideas and various individuals'/teams'
> > > preferences.
> > > I'm more than happy to discuss and debate this stuff with anyone who's
> > > interested and we'll continue reviewing each patch on its merit and
> > > providing
> > > exceptions to these rules where they make sense, but it will remain an
> > > ongoing
> > > goal and it's something we'd like people to consider when working on OSC
> > > itself
> > > or any of its plugins.
> > 
> > i agree with what you said in general but there is one digerance already that
> > we might need to reconsider.
> > 
> > i hate that i bring this up but one of the design guidlines of OSC was
> > commands must not auto negociagte the latest micorverion.
> > that again was for consitency so that command would work the same across
> > different clouds with different api versions.
> > many plugins have broken this design requirement btu the core osc client still
> > maintains its orginal design.
> > 
> > to level set osc intentionally does not support microverion negocaitation, it
> > was a desgin choice not an oversight.
> 
> Like gtema, I'm not aware of any such design decision in OSC. Looking through
> the docs and git logs, I'm also unable to find any references to it. I _suspect_
> that you might be confusing OSC with the legacy clients, where this behavior was
> very much a design choice. OSC has traditionally inherited this behavior
> owing to its use of the API bindings from the legacy clients but this wasn't
> intentional. 
> 
that is not the case if you want to understand the history dean has captured it here https://youtu.be/D-4Avtxjby0?t=310
i was stitting in the room at the time. the commitment ot provideing a stable comandline interface for puppet ansible and other
scripting was intoduced in the 1.0 release.

this was one of the big departure form the project cleint that do not provide a stabel command line gurantee for scripting.
we try not to break people intentually but osc was ment to be the stable client that had consitenty behavior.


> We must remember that OSC is designed for humans first and
> foremost, while machines should use SDK or the clients directly.
> 
again that is wrong machine parsable output is a core part of the openstack client phiosophy
https://youtu.be/D-4Avtxjby0?t=911
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMy9IsRHY-o&t=1528s

>  When auto-
> negotiation is done correctly (i.e. without the bugs that fungi highlighted), it
> allows a human to get the best possible functionality from their deployment (if
> we are to assume that each new microversion is an improvement on its
> predecessors) which ultimately results in a better user experience.
> 
its a better user experince only if its correct and to have it be correct and consitent 
to be both you would need to use the oldest microversoin that supports the parmaters you passed
using the oldest ensure the behavior is consitent across clouds.
>  As we
> replace use of these clients with SDK, we are slowly fixing this in core OSC and
> we'd like to eventually see all commands in OSC auto-negotiating microversions,
> where this makes sense for the underlying service.
that will directly break existing users and documentation.
so if you eant to enabel that it needs to be a majory version as it will break the api gurantees of the openstack client.
im not arguring that auto negociation would not be a better ux but we dont get it for free.
the cost will be in consitent behavior across openstack clouds and versiosn.

> 
> > since many of the plugins have ignored that and implemnted it anyway i think it would be good to provide a way to opt into the
> > desired behavior. i.e. provide a --latest global flag or change the default for the --os-compute-api ectr command to latest in a major
> > version fo osc.
> 
> As you know, you can manually set API versions in three ways:
> 
>  * Via command-line arguments
>  * Via environment variables
>  * Via clouds.yaml
> 
> Any of these will override the version negotiation done by OSC. For a power user
> like yourself, I suspect this might be what you want and you're free to do it.
> Nothing changes with these. We'll just start doing auto-negotiation by default.
im concerned about the ecosystem of user and docs that have been built based on teh stable command line api gurenetee
that the openstack cleint team commited to in the 1.0 release.

i will be fine in any case but you have reniforced my perspective that teh people that gave that guarnteee have left the proejct
and the fact that was a fundemental part fo the desgin has been lost for the knowlage of the current team.

we use a lazy concent model in openstack as with may opensource proejct and if we decied to revoke that guarenttee and decied that as a comunity its
better to focuse on human users i am fine with that if its a deliberate decsion. i dont think we should sleep walk into that because
there is no one to advocate for the orginal design commitments. the oringal design has a user centric approch to ensuring that
all command are inutitve and hiding the implmantion detail of which project provide a given logic resouce.

i woudl like it if my command just worked too but we need to be very very carful with this type of change.

> 
> > we can provide a common impelmatiton in osc and the plugins can just reuse that instead of all of them that chose to suport it implemneting it them
> > selves.
> > 
> > again this goes directly against the orginial design intent fo osc to provide a stable comandline interface across
> > clouds with differnt versions of openstack, however since most of the peopel that cared about that have now moved on form openstack
> > and osc and since the comunity seam to have change its mind in providing a stable api expirence we should proably adress this divergance.
> > 
> > i see the fact that some plugins added micorversion negocation in direct breach of this design principal to be more problematic
> > form a consticy point of view then any other divergance.
> 
> See above :)
> 
> Stephen
> 
> > > 
> > > I will now get off my pedestal/ivory tower 🗼
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > Stephen
> > > 
> > > PS: I'm talking here about the command themselves, not their
> > > implementations. We
> > > do somethings extra in OSC that are user helpful, like allowing users to
> > > identify resources by their name in addition to by their UUIDs. We also
> > > currently do things that no so user helpful, like crashing and burning if
> > > the
> > > name lookups fail (I'm thinking about the various Glance-related commands
> > > that
> > > error out if a project name/ID is passed to a command and the user can't
> > > look up
> > > that project). These are things we're more than willing to fix and will
> > > happily
> > > accept patches for :)
> > > 
> > > [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/865377
>