On 01/31/2015 05:24 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > Hi > > This discussion came up at the cinder mid-cycle last week too, > specifically in the context of 'Can we change the details text in an > existing error, or is that an unacceptable API change'. > > I have to second security / operational concerns about exposing too much > granularity of failure in these error codes. > > For cases where there is something wrong with the request (item out of > range, invalid names, feature not supported, etc) I totally agree that > we should have good, clear, parsable response, and standardisation would > be good. Having some fixed part of the response (whether a numeric code > or, as I tend to prefer, a CamelCaseDescription so that I don't have to > go look it up) and a human readable description section that is subject > to change seems sensible. > > What I would rather not see is leakage of information when something > internal to the cloud goes wrong, that the tenant can do nothing > against. We certainly shouldn't be leaking internal implementation > details like vendor details - that is what request IDs and logs are for. > The whole point of the cloud, to me, is that separation between the > things a tenant controls (what they want done) and what the cloud > provider controls (the details of how the work is done). > > For example, if a create volume request fails because cinder-scheduler > has crashed, all the tenant should get back is 'Things are broken, try > again later or pass request id 1234-5678-abcd-def0 to the cloud admin'. > They should need to or even be allowed to care about the details of the > failure, it is not their domain.
Sure, the value really is in determining things that are under the client's control to do differently. A concrete one is a multi hypervisor cloud with 2 hypervisors (say kvm and docker). The volume attach operation to a docker instance (which presumably is a separate set of instance types) can't work. The user should be told that that can't work with this instance_type if they try it. That's actually user correctable information. And doesn't require a ticket to move forward. I also think we could have a detail level knob, because I expect the level of information exposure might be considered different in public cloud use case vs. a private cloud at an org level or a private cloud at a dept level. -Sean > > > > On 30 January 2015 at 02:34, Rochelle Grober <rochelle.gro...@huawei.com > <mailto:rochelle.gro...@huawei.com>> wrote: > > Hi folks! > > Changed the tags a bit because this is a discussion for all projects > and dovetails with logging rationalization/standards/ > > At the Paris summit, we had a number of session on logging that kept > circling back to Error Codes. But, these codes would not be http > codes, rather, as others have pointed out, codes related to the > calling entities and referring entities and the actions that > happened or didn’t. Format suggestions were gathered from the > Operators and from some senior developers. The Logging Working > Group is planning to put forth a spec for discussion on formats and > standards before the Ops mid-cycle meetup. > > Working from a Glance proposal on error codes: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127482/ and discussions with > operators and devs, we have a strawman to propose. We also have a > number of requirements from Ops and some Devs. > > Here is the basic idea: > > Code for logs would have four segments: > Project Vendor/Component Error > Catalog number Criticality > Def [A-Z] [A-Z] [A-Z] - > [{0-9}|{A-Z}][A-Z] - [0000-9999]- [0-9] > Ex. CIN- NA- > 0001- > 2 > Cinder NetApp > driver error no > Criticality > Ex. GLA- 0A- > 0051 > 3 > Glance Api > error no > Criticality > Three letters for project, Either a two letter vendor code or a > number and letter for 0+letter for internal component of project > (like API=0A, Controller =0C, etc), four digit error number which > could be subsetted for even finer granularity, and a criticality number. > > This is for logging purposes and tracking down root cause faster for > operators, but if an error is generated, why can the same codes be > used internally for the code as externally for the logs? This also > allows for a unique message to be associated with the error code > that is more descriptive and that can be pre translated. Again, for > logging purposes, the error code would not be part of the message > payload, but part of the headers. Referrer IDs and other info would > still be expected in the payload of the message and could include > instance ids/names, NICs or VIFs, etc. The message headers is code > in Oslo.log and when using the Oslo.log library, will be easy to use. > > Since this discussion came up, I thought I needed to get this info > out to folks and advertise that anyone will be able to comment on > the spec to drive it to agreement. I will be advertising it here > and on Ops and Product-WG mailing lists. I’d also like to invite > anyone who want to participate in discussions to join them. We’ll > be starting a bi-weekly or weekly IRC meeting (also announced in the > stated MLs) in February. > > And please realize that other than Oslo.log, the changes to make the > errors more useable will be almost entirely community created > standards with community created tools to help enforce them. None > of which exist yet, FYI. > > --RockyG > > > > > > > From: Eugeniya Kudryashova [mailto:ekudryash...@mirantis.com > <mailto:ekudryash...@mirantis.com>] > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:33 AM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: [openstack-dev] [api][nova] Openstack HTTP error codes > > > Hi, all > > > > Openstack APIs interact with each other and external systems > partially by passing of HTTP errors. The only valuable difference > between types of exceptions is HTTP-codes, but current codes are > generalized, so external system can’t distinguish what actually > happened. > > > As an example two different failures below differs only by error > message: > > > request: > > POST /v2/790f5693e97a40d38c4d5bfdc45acb09/servers HTTP/1.1 > > Host: 192.168.122.195:8774 > <http://192.168.122.195:8774><http://192.168.122.195:8774> > > X-Auth-Project-Id: demo > > Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, compress > > Content-Length: 189 > > Accept: application/json > > User-Agent: python-novaclient > > X-Auth-Token: 2cfeb9283d784cfba694f3122ef413bf > > Content-Type: application/json > > > {"server": {"name": "demo", "imageRef": > "171c9d7d-3912-4547-b2a5-ea157eb08622", "key_name": "test", > "flavorRef": "42", "max_count": 1, "min_count": 1, > "security_groups": [{"name": "bar"}]}} > > response: > > HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request > > Content-Length: 118 > > Content-Type: application/json; charset=UTF-8 > > X-Compute-Request-Id: req-a995e1fc-7ea4-4305-a7ae-c569169936c0 > > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:43:33 GMT > > > {"badRequest": {"message": "Security group bar not found for project > 790f5693e97a40d38c4d5bfdc45acb09.", "code": 400}} > > > and > > > request: > > POST /v2/790f5693e97a40d38c4d5bfdc45acb09/servers HTTP/1.1 > > Host: 192.168.122.195:8774 > <http://192.168.122.195:8774><http://192.168.122.195:8774> > > X-Auth-Project-Id: demo > > Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, compress > > Content-Length: 192 > > Accept: application/json > > User-Agent: python-novaclient > > X-Auth-Token: 24c0d30ff76c42e0ae160fa93db8cf71 > > Content-Type: application/json > > > {"server": {"name": "demo", "imageRef": > "171c9d7d-3912-4547-b2a5-ea157eb08622", "key_name": "foo", > "flavorRef": "42", "max_count": 1, "min_count": 1, > "security_groups": [{"name": "default"}]}} > > response: > > HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request > > Content-Length: 70 > > Content-Type: application/json; charset=UTF-8 > > X-Compute-Request-Id: req-87604089-7071-40a7-a34b-7bc56d0551f5 > > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:39:43 GMT > > > {"badRequest": {"message": "Invalid key_name provided.", "code": 400}} > > > The former specifies an incorrect security group name, and the > latter an incorrect keypair name. And the problem is, that just > looking at the response body and HTTP response code an external > system can’t understand what exactly went wrong. And parsing of > error messages here is not the way we’d like to solve this problem. > > > Another example for solving this problem is AWS EC2 exception codes [1] > > > So if we have some service based on Openstack projects it would be > useful to have some concrete error codes(textual or numeric), which > could allow to define what actually goes wrong and later correctly > process obtained exception. These codes should be predefined for > each exception, have documented structure and allow to parse > exception correctly in each step of exception handling. > > > So I’d like to discuss implementing such codes and its usage in > openstack projects. > > [1] - > http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/APIReference/errors-overview.html > _______________________________________________ > Product-wg mailing list > product...@lists.openstack.org <mailto:product...@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg > > > > > -- > Duncan Thomas > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Sean Dague http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev