| *** bpokorny_ has joined #openstack-searchlight | 00:02 | |
| *** bpokorny has quit IRC | 00:05 | |
| *** bpokorny_ has quit IRC | 00:07 | |
| *** yingjun has joined #openstack-searchlight | 00:18 | |
| *** pcaruana has joined #openstack-searchlight | 04:25 | |
| *** pcaruana has quit IRC | 04:32 | |
| *** pcaruana has joined #openstack-searchlight | 06:12 | |
| openstackgerrit | GB21 proposed openstack/searchlight: Flavor Plugin https://review.openstack.org/315409 | 08:27 |
|---|---|---|
| openstackgerrit | GB21 proposed openstack/searchlight: Flavor Plugin https://review.openstack.org/315409 | 08:47 |
| *** GB21 has joined #openstack-searchlight | 08:47 | |
| *** pcaruana is now known as pcaruana|afk| | 09:01 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 09:04 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-searchlight | 09:05 | |
| *** GB21 has quit IRC | 09:16 | |
| *** GB21 has joined #openstack-searchlight | 09:33 | |
| *** yingjun has quit IRC | 09:46 | |
| *** GB21 has quit IRC | 10:08 | |
| *** GB21 has joined #openstack-searchlight | 10:25 | |
| *** GB21 has quit IRC | 10:56 | |
| *** GB21 has joined #openstack-searchlight | 11:00 | |
| *** yingjun has joined #openstack-searchlight | 11:44 | |
| *** GB21 has quit IRC | 12:31 | |
| *** yingjun has quit IRC | 12:47 | |
| *** yingjun has joined #openstack-searchlight | 12:47 | |
| *** yingjun has quit IRC | 12:52 | |
| *** pcaruana|afk| is now known as pcaruana | 13:01 | |
| *** itisha has quit IRC | 13:09 | |
| *** yingjun has joined #openstack-searchlight | 13:11 | |
| *** sigmavirus24_awa is now known as sigmavirus24 | 13:28 | |
| openstackgerrit | Travis Tripp proposed openstack/searchlight: Simple Script for Generating Resources https://review.openstack.org/230697 | 14:23 |
| *** GB21 has joined #openstack-searchlight | 14:36 | |
| *** GB21 has quit IRC | 14:42 | |
| TravT | Courtesy Searchlight meeting reminder in 1 minute in #openstack-meeting-4: lakshmiS, nikhil_k, rosmaita, TravT, david-lyle, sjmc7, itisha, GB21, briancline, lei-zh, yingjun, RickA-HP | 14:59 |
| *** GB21 has joined #openstack-searchlight | 15:49 | |
| *** GB21 has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** gb21 has joined #openstack-searchlight | 16:24 | |
| sjmc7 | TravT: hypervisors came up as part of the ui discussion. there is a BP for admin-only plugins already, https://blueprints.launchpad.net/searchlight/+spec/admin-only-plugins | 16:27 |
| sjmc7 | but that’s not really what you were asking for | 16:27 |
| TravT | yeah, it is kind of complicated | 16:27 |
| sjmc7 | you don’t want hypervisors visible unless all_projects is set, correct? | 16:27 |
| TravT | so, we have the "get plugins" | 16:28 |
| sjmc7 | naively flavors would look like a similar issue (or a third party patch to search documentation or something); they’re not directly project related | 16:28 |
| TravT | and we have the "match_all" case | 16:28 |
| *** bpokorny has joined #openstack-searchlight | 16:28 | |
| TravT | for get_plugins, you'd want to be able to state whether or not you want to include admin only ones. | 16:29 |
| TravT | maybe it really should be you get plugins and they have some info on them about scope | 16:29 |
| TravT | and up to user to decide which ones to show. | 16:30 |
| sjmc7 | but is it really ‘admin only'? | 16:30 |
| TravT | no, i don't think so | 16:30 |
| TravT | flavors as you mentioned | 16:30 |
| sjmc7 | do you want hypversiros to show up for an admin running match_all? | 16:30 |
| TravT | flavors maybe isn't actually an admin only example | 16:30 |
| sjmc7 | maybe i misunderstood earlier | 16:30 |
| sjmc7 | no… it IS a “not project related” example | 16:31 |
| TravT | but it is as well | 16:31 |
| TravT | flavors can be assigned to projects | 16:31 |
| sjmc7 | they can be *visible* to individual projects | 16:31 |
| TravT | yes | 16:31 |
| TravT | members"" | 16:32 |
| *** bpokorny has quit IRC | 16:32 | |
| sjmc7 | i guess i’m trying to ask is hypervisors a one off special case? | 16:32 |
| TravT | i think there'd by others. | 16:32 |
| *** bpokorny has joined #openstack-searchlight | 16:32 | |
| sjmc7 | maybe a better definition is that they’re cloud scoped? | 16:33 |
| sjmc7 | app catalog might be another example | 16:33 |
| TravT | hmm, that's interesting | 16:33 |
| sjmc7 | although… that sort of depends too | 16:33 |
| TravT | maybe we should put the cross project spec roles | 16:33 |
| gb21 | Hi sjmc7 and TravT | 16:33 |
| TravT | hi gb21 | 16:34 |
| sjmc7 | conversely i guess, what’s the problem including hypervisors with a match_all search? | 16:34 |
| TravT | gb21, FYI that the plugin author docs have been updated. | 16:34 |
| TravT | not sure if you got a chance to look them over? | 16:34 |
| TravT | give feedback, see if they need more? | 16:35 |
| TravT | http://docs.openstack.org/developer/searchlight/authoring-plugins.html | 16:35 |
| gb21 | TravT, I did'nt know about it; sure I will look into it | 16:35 |
| gb21 | I have a couple of questions regarding flavor Indexing | 16:35 |
| gb21 | First; thers is a parameter called as extra specs; which doesnt appear when a check the parameters of flavor with python client | 16:36 |
| gb21 | but it is present in the nova doc | 16:37 |
| TravT | you need to add extra specs to a flavor to get them | 16:37 |
| TravT | do you have horizon running? | 16:37 |
| gb21 | so; should I map it also; because I remember sjmc7 telling me at the summit that we should add them | 16:38 |
| gb21 | yepp | 16:38 |
| gb21 | I am | 16:38 |
| TravT | easy thing to do is to go to flavors page and click the update metadata link | 16:38 |
| TravT | then you can add them | 16:38 |
| TravT | re: mapping them... good questions | 16:38 |
| TravT | let me see if nova has a policy file for seeing the extra specs | 16:39 |
| TravT | you won't be able to map them all ahead of time | 16:39 |
| TravT | the best we could do for now is allow dynamic | 16:39 |
| gb21 | sure; and do we need it to be admin only? | 16:39 |
| sjmc7 | if it’s mapped as an “object” it’ll get indexed | 16:39 |
| TravT | good point sjmc7 | 16:39 |
| TravT | so, interestingly, flavors have some fine grained policy controls it appears | 16:40 |
| TravT | "compute_extension:flavor_access": "", | 16:40 |
| TravT | "compute_extension:flavor_access:addTenantAccess": "rule:admin_api", | 16:40 |
| TravT | "compute_extension:flavor_access:removeTenantAccess": "rule:admin_api", | 16:40 |
| TravT | "compute_extension:flavor_disabled": "", | 16:40 |
| TravT | "compute_extension:flavor_rxtx": "", | 16:40 |
| TravT | "compute_extension:flavor_swap": "", | 16:40 |
| TravT | "compute_extension:flavorextradata": "", | 16:40 |
| TravT | "compute_extension:flavorextraspecs:index": "", | 16:40 |
| TravT | "compute_extension:flavorextraspecs:show": "", | 16:41 |
| TravT | ignore the access ones above | 16:41 |
| sjmc7 | yeah, neutron’s the same | 16:41 |
| TravT | but sadly, i think we'd have to do a policy check on each of those | 16:41 |
| sjmc7 | right now we have to duplicate that with admin_only_fields | 16:41 |
| TravT | and then add a filter or do post result filtering based on the policy check for each field | 16:42 |
| sjmc7 | it’s better to filter when indexing | 16:42 |
| TravT | when indexing? | 16:42 |
| sjmc7 | to avoid fishing searches like we had with nova | 16:42 |
| TravT | that's true... but | 16:42 |
| TravT | well, i suppose could check policy at index time to determine whether or not to do admin only indexing for specific fields | 16:43 |
| *** yingjun has quit IRC | 16:43 | |
| TravT | but the policy check won't give that narrow of a result | 16:43 |
| TravT | since it could be anything | 16:43 |
| *** yingjun has joined #openstack-searchlight | 16:44 | |
| sjmc7 | it’s the same test, just at a different time. the drawback is you can’t then change the policy | 16:44 |
| sjmc7 | but i don’t know how common it would be to tweak those in a deployment | 16:44 |
| TravT | not likely | 16:44 |
| TravT | and you can always re-index | 16:44 |
| TravT | i mean we can just document that they'll have to set them as admin only fields in config | 16:44 |
| TravT | start with that | 16:44 |
| TravT | and look at actually policy check at indexing later | 16:45 |
| sjmc7 | yeah. i think we’ll need to look at it for neutron as well. i’m fine with admin-only for now | 16:45 |
| TravT | the default is that they aren't | 16:45 |
| TravT | so, gb21, to answer your base question | 16:45 |
| TravT | add extra specs to flavors and you should get them | 16:45 |
| TravT | in api result | 16:45 |
| TravT | map as object | 16:46 |
| sjmc7 | i think you have to call get_keys() or something? | 16:46 |
| gb21 | and I don't need to define any of its properties right? | 16:46 |
| gb21 | I think yes | 16:46 |
| gb21 | I think get_keys() is there | 16:47 |
| gb21 | I will check | 16:47 |
| TravT | not right now | 16:48 |
| TravT | in the future i have an idea for how to do that across plugins | 16:48 |
| TravT | but that can come later | 16:48 |
| *** yingjun has quit IRC | 16:48 | |
| gb21 | okay; Thanks | 16:49 |
| gb21 | :D | 16:49 |
| TravT | sjmc7 | 16:49 |
| TravT | the cross project thing i was talking about is this: | 16:49 |
| TravT | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/245629/ | 16:49 |
| TravT | they basically have the "common roles" | 16:50 |
| TravT | that nobody has implemented yet | 16:50 |
| TravT | because it isn't agreed to | 16:50 |
| TravT | so i was just thinking that a plugin could declare what roles can use it... | 16:51 |
| TravT | list of them | 16:51 |
| TravT | right now we really only have admin (cloud admin) and project user | 16:51 |
| sjmc7 | isn’t that what policy does? | 16:51 |
| TravT | yes, it is | 16:52 |
| TravT | but | 16:52 |
| TravT | back to SL UI usage | 16:52 |
| sjmc7 | what’s the behavior you want for hypervisors specifically? | 16:52 |
| TravT | the project vs admin dashboard | 16:52 |
| TravT | right now I can come in as an admin | 16:52 |
| TravT | and the list of plugins i can see would include everything | 16:53 |
| sjmc7 | yep | 16:53 |
| TravT | so from a UI perspective | 16:53 |
| TravT | i need a way to know or to filter the plugins (types) that they can choose from in the project dashboard | 16:53 |
| TravT | (don't show hypervisor) | 16:53 |
| sjmc7 | wait, so what’s the issue with hypervisors appearing? | 16:53 |
| TravT | hypervisors are currently an admin dashboard thing | 16:54 |
| openstackgerrit | Tyr Johanson proposed openstack/searchlight-ui: Code organization cleanup https://review.openstack.org/315672 | 16:54 |
| sjmc7 | so are flavors | 16:54 |
| TravT | but users of a project can see flavors | 16:55 |
| TravT | they show up at instance launch time | 16:55 |
| sjmc7 | ok. i think i’m being dense :( | 16:55 |
| TravT | maybe there isn't a panel | 16:55 |
| TravT | but it doesn't matter, they can see them. | 16:56 |
| sjmc7 | i guess i’m not getitng the rules under which something should or should not be visible. if it’s a hypervisor-specific thing then ok, we can do that | 16:56 |
| gb21 | Do I have to index flavors with admin type as hypervisors are done? | 16:56 |
| TravT | yes | 16:56 |
| david-lyle | sjmc7: it's policy driven | 16:57 |
| gb21 | aalright; I will do that. | 16:57 |
| sjmc7 | policy restricts whether a user can see them, but this seems to go beyond that | 16:57 |
| TravT | sjmc7, you were pointing out why we should have separate search panels (project vs admin) | 16:57 |
| sjmc7 | yeah.. btu doesn’t this same problem hold right now? | 16:57 |
| sjmc7 | or in its own dashboard? | 16:57 |
| TravT | maybe and i we'd probably need to do something similar | 16:58 |
| sjmc7 | i think i’m just confused, i should stop :) | 16:58 |
| TravT | you just need to be able to scope your search to the right scope | 16:58 |
| TravT | don't show me things that are adminny | 16:58 |
| sjmc7 | :) | 16:59 |
| david-lyle | adminny? | 16:59 |
| sjmc7 | i mean, they will only show up to an admin. | 16:59 |
| TravT | new word of the day | 16:59 |
| gb21 | I like it | 16:59 |
| gb21 | :D | 16:59 |
| sjmc7 | i would consider hypervisors like flavors in that sense, except they happen to be useable by everyone and can’t be restricted by project | 16:59 |
| david-lyle | so there's not really a problem of bleeding admin level info to a project level view, if the user has those permission and it relates to the currently scoped project | 17:00 |
| TravT | david-lyle: definitely on flavors | 17:00 |
| david-lyle | yeah, hypervisors, not so much | 17:00 |
| TravT | just thinking if i'm logged in as admin and got to project search panel | 17:01 |
| TravT | do i want to see hypervisors (exemplary type) as an option to only search on? | 17:02 |
| TravT | do i want hypervisors to show up in my search when i don't restrict the search to a specific type? | 17:02 |
| david-lyle | I doubt it | 17:03 |
| sjmc7 | and i presume you think ‘no' | 17:03 |
| sjmc7 | which makes sense | 17:03 |
| david-lyle | but that's subjective | 17:03 |
| sjmc7 | if you have a resource that’s not project specific and you’re a normal user (say a third party plugin that indexes docs) that would be the same question | 17:04 |
| sjmc7 | so that’s my justification for saying this is not a role discussion | 17:04 |
| sjmc7 | so much as a scoping one | 17:04 |
| sjmc7 | so i’m fine with adding a parameter for ‘things that make sense in a project context’, i think | 17:05 |
| *** lakshmiS has joined #openstack-searchlight | 17:06 | |
| TravT | i think that's kind of what i'm getting as well. | 17:06 |
| TravT | if a plugin in its info has list of "scopes" or whatever | 17:06 |
| TravT | then the UI can decide which "scopes" to include / exclude | 17:06 |
| sjmc7 | i would worry that the distinction to a user will be tricky | 17:06 |
| TravT | whether they see the plugin at all is still policy driven | 17:06 |
| TravT | i don't think it is necessarily up to the user | 17:07 |
| sjmc7 | especially in a single dashboard/panel setup | 17:07 |
| TravT | but to the developers | 17:07 |
| TravT | so i'm not sure if you think i'm arguing for single dashboard here or not, but i'm not | 17:07 |
| sjmc7 | no, i don’t think you’re arguing either way | 17:08 |
| sjmc7 | i’m trying to imagine the scenarios | 17:08 |
| TravT | i'm saying this is what we need to do in order to build a project & admin search based panel | 17:08 |
| sjmc7 | i don’t even think that “fixes” it fully | 17:08 |
| sjmc7 | (separate panels) | 17:08 |
| TravT | so, in project dashboard, i could chose to code in to exclude types that are admin only scope | 17:08 |
| sjmc7 | i could imagine plugins that don’t make sense in a project context but aren’t admin only | 17:08 |
| TravT | so if admin comes in | 17:09 |
| sjmc7 | if only there were a UX group :) | 17:09 |
| TravT | we were going to run a usability study this month with piet | 17:09 |
| TravT | but weren't sure we could get it prepared in time | 17:10 |
| TravT | and now he says our next chance is 6 months from now | 17:10 |
| sjmc7 | like the motions of the planets | 17:10 |
| TravT | yeah, if the wind isn't blowing just right, you miss it | 17:10 |
| TravT | so, if flavors had | 17:11 |
| TravT | scope: ['admin', 'project'] | 17:11 |
| TravT | hypervisor had scope: ['admin'] | 17:11 |
| TravT | as an api user | 17:12 |
| TravT | i could query plugins | 17:12 |
| sjmc7 | and my imaginary docs plugin? | 17:12 |
| TravT | and then say for any that don't have scope of project, i will add an exclude filter | 17:12 |
| TravT | docs: scope: ['admin', 'project', 'all'] | 17:13 |
| TravT | frankly you could have admin and user docs | 17:13 |
| david-lyle | problem is admin, project is a classification that shouldn't be binary | 17:13 |
| TravT | hmmm... | 17:13 |
| TravT | well, i think the nut of it is that we need some way to classify in a way that API users and UI builders can make a choice. | 17:14 |
| sjmc7 | i do kind of see the point. i don’t think the admin/non-admin boundary is where the distinction is though | 17:14 |
| TravT | if we have separate searching areas (project, admin, top nav) | 17:14 |
| TravT | no i don't either | 17:15 |
| TravT | but i don't have a better word | 17:15 |
| TravT | okay, i know we didn't solve it, but i have to go | 17:16 |
| TravT | will be back online in about an hour. | 17:17 |
| david-lyle | maybe combined is the best answer | 17:17 |
| david-lyle | with the UX issues tackled | 17:17 |
| TravT | combined? | 17:18 |
| david-lyle | a unified view that only relies on policy | 17:18 |
| david-lyle | I did it with identity | 17:18 |
| david-lyle | but identity is special :) | 17:19 |
| sjmc7 | i still have nightmares about domains | 17:19 |
| david-lyle | you're welcome | 17:19 |
| david-lyle | from me and keystone | 17:19 |
| sjmc7 | project hierarchy, anyone? | 17:20 |
| sjmc7 | this has given me the heebie jeebies, i need to go eat things | 17:20 |
| TravT | yes, brain hurting | 17:21 |
| TravT | i'm going to go for the moment as well. | 17:21 |
| TravT | but let's come back to this later. | 17:22 |
| david-lyle | yeah HMT should burn in a fire slowly | 17:22 |
| david-lyle | so much hell for one use case | 17:22 |
| TravT | can i bring marshmallows? | 17:22 |
| david-lyle | if you like roasting marshmallows over burning toxic waste :) | 17:22 |
| TravT | it sounds similar to my day job | 17:22 |
| TravT | ;) | 17:23 |
| *** TravT_ has joined #openstack-searchlight | 17:24 | |
| *** TravT has quit IRC | 17:27 | |
| *** TravT_ has quit IRC | 17:30 | |
| openstackgerrit | Yosef Hoffman proposed openstack/searchlight: Include zone_id in Designate Recordset mapping https://review.openstack.org/315691 | 17:32 |
| *** gb21 has quit IRC | 17:33 | |
| *** TravT has joined #openstack-searchlight | 17:41 | |
| *** pcaruana has quit IRC | 17:58 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 18:18 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-searchlight | 18:19 | |
| sjmc7 | TravT: you back? | 19:05 |
| *** bpokorny has quit IRC | 19:18 | |
| *** yingjun has joined #openstack-searchlight | 19:44 | |
| *** yingjun has quit IRC | 19:45 | |
| *** yingjun has joined #openstack-searchlight | 19:45 | |
| *** bpokorny has joined #openstack-searchlight | 19:45 | |
| *** yingjun has quit IRC | 19:50 | |
| TravT | hey sjmc7 | 20:07 |
| TravT | i had a thought on the whole plugins thing | 20:07 |
| TravT | just add tags to the plugins | 20:07 |
| TravT | rather than a predefined set of categories or scopes... | 20:08 |
| TravT | but then it becomes a deployment configuration headache | 20:09 |
| sjmc7 | mmm | 20:10 |
| *** lakshmiS has quit IRC | 21:13 | |
| *** sigmavirus24 is now known as sigmavirus24_awa | 22:00 | |
| openstackgerrit | Tyr Johanson proposed openstack/searchlight-ui: Code organization cleanup https://review.openstack.org/315672 | 22:02 |
| *** lakshmiS has joined #openstack-searchlight | 22:24 | |
| *** bpokorny_ has joined #openstack-searchlight | 22:47 | |
| *** bpokorny has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| *** TravT has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| *** lakshmiS has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** bpokorny_ has quit IRC | 23:28 | |
| *** bpokorny has joined #openstack-searchlight | 23:29 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!