So, what's the benefit here of having a dedicated CAG object instead of letting it just be a relation between caches and delivery services? The "implied object" method of simply matching names seems considerably more flexible going forward and it's easier to see the relationships in the data. Is there a performance problem or extra data we want to store on the CAG?
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:05 PM Fieck, Brennan <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd like to propose that instead of adding > `/api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{{id}}` that supports PUT and DELETE, we just > let `/api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups` handle those operations/methods with an > identifying query parameter. There are two or three endpoints that do this > already, I think `coordinates` is one of them. > ________________________________________ > From: Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - TRITON UK BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus > (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 12:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PROPOSAL] Cache Assignment Group REST API > > Discussion looks to have slowed down and it was a bit of a long road, so I’ll > summarize where we ended up. > > POST,GET /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/ > PUT /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id} > {"id": 1, > "name": "name1", > "description": "description1", > "cdnId": 1, > "servers": [1,2,...n], > "lastUpdated": "", > } > > DELETE /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id} > > — DS->CAG Assignments — > PUT/POST /deliveryservices > Add optional list of assigned CAGs to the delivery service struct > > — Retrieving Server<->DS Assignments — > > GET /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/servers > Will return a list of explicit server assignments unioned with servers > assigned through CAGs. (Full server details) > > POST /api/$version/deliveryservices/:xmlId/servers > Will accept a list of explicit server assignments (server names) as it does > today. > > > > > On May 22, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - TRITON UK BIDCO > > LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry, should have been more clear. I was thinking about a case where there > > was no explicit assignment, only a CAG assignment. > > > > -Eric > > > >> On May 22, 2019, at 9:06 AM, Fieck, Brennan <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> If someone POSTs to a DS to try and remove the name of a server that is > >>> assigned via a CAG, the call will return success but neither the explicit > >>> assignment nor the CAG assignments will be changes > >> > >> Why not remove the explicit assignment? IMO, a success response tells the > >> client that the operation succeeded, so doing that when in fact it didn't > >> is a confusing lie from the client's perspective. > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - TRITON UK BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter > >> Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:36 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PROPOSAL] Cache Assignment Group REST API > >> > >> GET /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/servers > >> Will return a list of explicit server assignments unioned with servers > >> assigned through CAGs. (Full server details) > >> > >> POST /api/$version/deliveryservices/:xmlId/servers > >> Aside: Why does this one use xmlId when all these other endpoint use only > >> ID? Its rather inconsistent… > >> > >> Will accept a list of explicit server assignments (server names) as it > >> does today. > >> If someone POSTs to a DS with the name of a server that is assigned via a > >> CAG, it will also become explicitly assigned to that DS. > >> If someone POSTs to a DS to try and remove the name of a server that is > >> assigned via a CAG, the call will return success but neither the explicit > >> assignment nor the CAG assignments will be changes > >> > >> > >> I was initially worried of someone doing a GET from :id/servers and then > >> POSTing the response to :xmlId/servers but the formats are somehow so > >> different thats not really a concern. > >> > >> —Eric > >> > >> > >>> On May 21, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Rawlin beat me to it. > >>> > >>> /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/servers <-- tenancy is already checked > >>> (i hope) on this route. > >>> > >>> imo if CAGs are introduced, the handler associated with that route ^^ > >>> needs > >>> to be modified to take CAGs into account (in addition to explicit server > >>> assignments) > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:52 AM Rawlin Peters <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'm hesitant to add a server list to the delivery service object just > >>>> because it's a lot of data (same with adding a delivery service list > >>>> to the server object). Two of the things that are done the most in > >>>> Traffic Ops are: > >>>> 1. adding new servers > >>>> 2. adding new delivery services > >>>> Every time we do one of those things we're already increasing the size > >>>> of the CRConfig at an M*N rate, so by adding a server list into the DS > >>>> object and a list of DSes into the server object would gives those > >>>> objects the same problem as the CRConfig. By adding an aggregation > >>>> between the two of them -- the Cache Assignment Group -- it is more > >>>> reasonable to include the list of CAGs in the server and DS objects. > >>>> > >>>> I agree with Eric's common questions (which DSes are assigned to a > >>>> server and which servers are assigned to a DS), but we do already have > >>>> specific endpoints for those two questions: > >>>> /api/$version/servers/:id/deliveryservices > >>>> /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/servers > >>>> > >>>> Those endpoints would have to start taking into account any CAGs. > >>>> > >>>> - Rawlin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 8:45 AM Fieck, Brennan > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd be a fan of adding a servers array to DS objects. We don't need the > >>>> whole server object in each entry, just some identifying information > >>>> (name, > >>>> id, type should be sufficient I would think). > >>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>> From: Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - TRITON UK BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter > >>>> Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) <[email protected]> > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:09 AM > >>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PROPOSAL] Cache Assignment Group REST API > >>>>> > >>>>> I like this, but I think we still have a challenge with tenancy. > >>>>> > >>>>> Two of the very common questions with these groups are > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Which servers are assigned to this Delivery Service (either > >>>> individually or through a CAG). > >>>>> > >>>>> Using the existing proposed API, users would first need to call > >>>> /deliveryService?id= to get a list of CAGs. Then iterate of that list of > >>>> CAGs calling /server?cag= for each name/id. Not very user friendly. > >>>>> > >>>>> Instead, this question could be answered using > >>>> /servers?deliveryService=<dsId> > >>>>> But /server still needs to be tenant-aware > >>>>> > >>>>> I dont see a way to put it into the more tenant-friendly > >>>> /deliveryservice endpoint without adding a “servers” field to the > >>>> existing > >>>> DS query params/response. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) Which delivery services are assigned to this server (needed for > >>>> remap.config generation but operators also like to see this info) > >>>>> This could be answered with > >>>>> /servers?id=<serverId> > >>>>> If we are OK adding the DS assignments into the server as well > >>>>> > >>>>> Similarly to 1, it could also go into /deliveryservice with the > >>>> addition of an assigned servers field in the response. > >>>>> > >>>>> —Eric > >>>>> > >>>>>> On May 19, 2019, at 7:33 PM, Chris Lemmons <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I like where Rawlin is headed and I think you can take it even one > >>>>>> step simpler. What if you moved the cacheAssignmentGroup into the > >>>>>> server data instead? So it would look like this: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Server: > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> "id": 1, > >>>>>> "cags": ["foo", "quux"] > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Delivery Service: > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> "xmlId": "bar", > >>>>>> "cags": ["foo","bar"], > >>>>>> "tenantId": 7, > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If we need it for performance, we could map names to numbers under the > >>>>>> hood, of course. This way tenancy works the way we want it to, and we > >>>>>> can use capabilities to restrict who can adjust server assignments, > >>>>>> which are, as has been observed, multi-tenant. A delivery service is > >>>>>> assigned to a server if one of its cags matches one of the server's > >>>>>> cags. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For some bonus utility, you could allow most mutating operations to > >>>>>> operate on cags as well, for example to set a group admin-down at > >>>>>> once. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In the future, if we need really fine control, we could potentially > >>>>>> allow boolean logic on the cag fields, which might be useful for > >>>>>> things like "cags": ["coreprod", "newprod & !canary"], which would > >>>>>> match any server that had a coreprod tag, or a server with newprod but > >>>>>> not canary. It could be used for managing "requirements", since not > >>>>>> all caches might support the same set or versions of plugins > >>>>>> (especially during a rollout of an upgrade). Imagine "cags": > >>>>>> ["prod_east & urisigning16"] for ensuring that the DS is only assigned > >>>>>> to servers with the correct version of urisigning. That sort of logic > >>>>>> could let operators set up very powerful and flexible assignment > >>>>>> systems, even in excess of what we can think up today. We'd need to > >>>>>> design that feature carefully, though, since we probably want to be > >>>>>> able to ask questions like "list all the DSs with the newprod cag", > >>>>>> which can be tricky to answer if we get too clever on our fields. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 2:20 PM Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think what Rawlin has proposed makes a lot of sense and would > >>>> simplify > >>>>>>> things w.r.t. tenancy. I like simplification. :) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> jeremy > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 1:59 PM Rawlin Peters < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I had a different idea > >>>>>>>> about CAGs w.r.t. tenancy. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Maybe the CAGs shouldn't contain the list of delivery services > >>>> they're > >>>>>>>> assigned to, and instead, the delivery service is enhanced to include > >>>>>>>> the list of CAGs its assigned to. Also, instead of a CAG being > >>>>>>>> tenantable, maybe we just keep tenancy in the delivery service so > >>>> that > >>>>>>>> if a tenant has access to a delivery service they are free to change > >>>>>>>> their DS's CAGs at will. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So we'd end up with something like: > >>>>>>>> CAG: > >>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>> "name": "foo", > >>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,3], > >>>>>>>> ... (no tenant ID) > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>> Delivery Service: > >>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>> "xmlId": "bar", > >>>>>>>> "cacheAssignmentGroups": [7, 8, 9], > >>>>>>>> "tenantId": 7, > >>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'm thinking that "logical server groups" shouldn't really be a > >>>>>>>> tenantable thing, because they are inherently multi-tenant, and we > >>>>>>>> might end up creating a crazy number of overlapping CAGs for all > >>>>>>>> tenants. Adding a new server into multiple overlapping CAGs per > >>>> tenant > >>>>>>>> might get out of hand. This would allow us to keep the total number > >>>> of > >>>>>>>> "logical server groups" down but still prevent a tenant from seeing > >>>>>>>> another tenant's CAGs. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What do you think? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - Rawlin > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:18 AM Jeremy Mitchell < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> yeah, maybe i overcomplicated it with my example and got it wrong. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> if the CAG belongs to tenant 2 and john is the only one that > >>>> belongs to > >>>>>>>>> tenant 2 (sally belongs to 2.1 and linda to 2.1.1), then john is > >>>> really > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> only one that can modify the CAG. and since the CAG only contains > >>>> DS's > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>> tenant 2, 2.1 or 2.2, he can modify ALL the ds's in that CAG... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> so disregard what i said in my example about what sally and linda > >>>> can > >>>>>>>>> modify because they can't if you add tenantId to CAG. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> so i think > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. add a tenantID to a CAG > >>>>>>>>> 2. enforce user tenancy on CAG post/put/delete > >>>>>>>>> 3. on post/put, ensure the tenancy of the assigned ds's are > >>>> compatible > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> the CAG tenant > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> jeremy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:08 AM Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - > >>>> TRITON UK > >>>>>>>>> BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) > >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Jeremy- > >>>>>>>>>> Going back to your original example of the tree below. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If DS baz is assigned to tenantId 2, then tenantIds 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.2 > >>>>>>>> cannot > >>>>>>>>>> modify baz, right? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If a CAG is created also with tenantId2, then I would expect the > >>>> same > >>>>>>>>>> behavior- only John as part of the 2 tenant can modify that CAG. > >>>>>>>>>> Similarly, this CAG could only contain DS’ that belong to our are > >>>>>>>> children > >>>>>>>>>> of tenant 2. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This seems to match existing behavior more closely? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> —Eric > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 16, 2019, at 10:43 AM, Jeremy Mitchell < > >>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> no, capabilities are very different than tenancy. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> capabilities dictate what you "can do" - i.e. you can modify CAG's > >>>>>>>> if you > >>>>>>>>>>> have the cacheassignmentgroup-write capability > >>>>>>>>>>> tenancy dictates what you "can do it to". in this case, if CAG's > >>>>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>>>>> tenantId and you have the cacheassignmentgroup-write capability, > >>>>>>>> then you > >>>>>>>>>>> can ONLY modify CAG's that fall in your tenancy scope. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> although different, capabilities and tenancy work hand in hand to > >>>>>>>> limit > >>>>>>>>>>> what a user can do (permissions) and what they can do that to > >>>>>>>> (scope). > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> because CAG's have an embedded tenantable resource (delivery > >>>>>>>> services), > >>>>>>>>>>> this makes it a bit trickier. not only should tenancy dictate > >>>> which > >>>>>>>> CAG's > >>>>>>>>>>> can be modified by the user, it should also dictate how those > >>>> CAG's > >>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>> be modified (i.e. which delivery services can be impacted by a > >>>>>>>>>> modification) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> jeremy > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:13 PM Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - > >>>> TRITON > >>>>>>>> UK > >>>>>>>>>>> BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) > >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Fieck, Brennan < > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You could just set tenant permissions based on the owning tenant > >>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Delivery Service. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Should the child of a tenant be able to modify cache > >>>> assignments of > >>>>>>>>>> said > >>>>>>>>>>>> tenant's Delivery Services? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't think so. > >>>>>>>>>>>> EF> Isn’t this what the capabilities are for? If a user has > >>>>>>>>>>>> “cacheassignmentgroup-write” capability, then they can modify the > >>>>>>>>>>>> assignments for any delivery services in that tenant > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 1:22 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PROPOSAL] Cache Assignment Group REST > >>>> API > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> example tenant tree: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> root > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - 1 (foo) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 1.1 (bar) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - 2 (baz) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 2.1 (bee) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- 2.1.1 (bang) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 2.2 (bop) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the foo ds belongs to tenant 1, bar ds belongs to tenant 1.1, > >>>> etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a CGA is created with tenantId=2 which means it can only have > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> baz, > >>>>>>>>>>>> bee, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> bang and bop ds's in it. John belongs to the 2 tenant and adds > >>>> all > >>>>>>>> 4 > >>>>>>>>>>>> (baz, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> bee, bang, bop). > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sally belongs to the 2.1 tenant, and only sees [bee, bang] in > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> CGA > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> does an update with [], so it blows away bee (the ds in her > >>>>>>>> tenant) and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> bang (plus any child tenant ds's) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linda belongs to the 2.1.1 tenant, and sees [] in the CGA > >>>> (because > >>>>>>>>>> sally > >>>>>>>>>>>>> blew them all away) and does an update with [goo]. now the CAG > >>>> has > >>>>>>>> baz > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> goo ds's. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> so basically, a user can only modify the ds's that they can see > >>>>>>>> based > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> their tenant (and subtenants). and a CAG can only have certain > >>>>>>>> ds's in > >>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>> based on it's tenant... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I "think" that would work....sounds a bit complicated but i > >>>> really > >>>>>>>> feel > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like tenancy probably belongs on a CAG because of its > >>>> relationship > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ds's. plus, then it would be nice to create CAG's for tenants. > >>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>> example, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> create a trial tenant and some trial ds's and some trial users > >>>> and > >>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have no choice but to use the trial CAG that has 2 caches in it > >>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>> something. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:01 PM Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - > >>>>>>>> TRITON UK > >>>>>>>>>>>>> BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the tenantId on the cacheassignmentgroup does not match > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenantID on one of the included delivery services? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Jeremy Mitchell < > >>>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I got an idea. If you made a cachegroupassignment a > >>>> "tenantable" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resource, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you could avoid the problem i mentioned above (having ds's > >>>>>>>> hidden for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenancy reasons). so this instead: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {"id": 1, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "name": "name1", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": "description1", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenantId: 2, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cdnId": 1, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,...n], > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deliveryServices": [10, 20, 30, 35] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lastUpdated": "", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this has a nice benefit as well. i.e. certain tenants (content > >>>>>>>>>>>> providers) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have access to certain cachegroupassignment configurations. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:43 PM Jeremy Mitchell < > >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just be careful that a GET > >>>> /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups?id=4 > >>>>>>>>>> doesn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return a filtered list of delivery services because of > >>>> tenancy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {"id": 1, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "name": "name1", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": "description1", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cdnId": 1, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,...n], > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deliveryServices": [10, 20, 30], <-- maybe there are really > >>>> 5 > >>>>>>>>>>>> delivery > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> services but 2 of them (40 and 50) are hidden from you due to > >>>>>>>>>> tenancy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lastUpdated": "", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a subsequent PUT with the same json (plus a new delivery > >>>>>>>> service > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is added): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {"id": 1, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "name": "name1", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": "description1", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cdnId": 1, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,...n], > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deliveryServices": [10, 20, 30, 35] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lastUpdated": "", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't wipe out 40 and 50. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you do this, it begs the question. how do you remove ALL > >>>> ds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assignments > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a cache assignment group? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also, how about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DELETE /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups?id= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DELETE /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id} > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:22 PM Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri > >>>> - > >>>>>>>>>> TRITON > >>>>>>>>>>>> UK > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feature description > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mail Thread: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/35ee49f4be1c30ff4a12c71e02897aee0e0d3d2f356640ab69ba247e@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/35ee49f4be1c30ff4a12c71e02897aee0e0d3d2f356640ab69ba247e@ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dev.trafficcontrol.apache.org>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Github Issue: > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/issues/3557 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API Proposal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> POST,GET /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PUT /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id} > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {"id": 1, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "name": "name1", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": "description1", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cdnId": 1, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,...n], > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deliveryServices": [10, 20, 30], > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lastUpdated": "", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DELETE /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id} > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- No request body > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This API is tenant-aware by delivery service. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Query Parameters (all optional) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If multiple filter parameters are specified, they are AND'd > >>>>>>>>>> together > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - id: Filter for a specific entry > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - servers: Filter all entries containing this server > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - deliveryService: Filter all entries containing this DS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - limit: Return maximum number of entries (default 20) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - page: Return page n, with each page having limit number of > >>>>>>>>>> entries > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (default 0) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Body Parameters: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - id: Numeric identifier, automatically assigned on > >>>> creation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Read-Only, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed in PUT/POST] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - name: Name of the cache assignment group > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - description Description of the cache assignment group > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - cdnId: ID of the CDN the cache assignment group belongs to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - servers: List of server IDs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - deliveryServices: List of delivery service IDs. All caches > >>>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servers list will be assigned to these delivery services > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - lastUpdated: Timestamp this cache assignment group was > >>>> last > >>>>>>>>>>>> updated. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Read-Only, not allowed in PUT/POST] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > > >
