Hi, Alexey I plan to split the implementation to several steps, because it will take weeks to complete. I'm afraid it would be too big a patch to review if I submit all changes in one patch set.
Instead I want to get comments as earlier as possible. Each submit will be covered by additional unit test and keep backward compatibility. Detail replies inline. On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:51 PM Weyl, Alexey (Nokia - IL) < alexey.w...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Yujun, > > Good job! This is a very important change for Vitrage. > > I have a couple of questions please: > 1. Why do we want to create a new datasource ‘static’ and not rename the > current ‘static_physical’ datasource and change it to work with the new > format? > I don't want to break it during the evolution. > 2. How are you planning to use the old 'static_physical' datasource as a > proxy if you said that you want to remove it? > Good point. Any suggestion on how we hide the deprecated modules? Move it as a submodule in new module. > 3. What kind of merge is needed in the evaluator? > Parsing of `definition` section would be a common module for both evaluator and static data source > 4. I saw the implementation of the driver.py in static, and it doesn't do > anything at the moment? (if you are still working on one of the patches > then please market it as -1 in the code-review that we will know that you > are still working on it. > Yes, skeleton is skeleton. Since I'm working remotely with vitrage team. I want to keep you updated on the progress. Still, it is complete with unit test and backward compatibility and will reduce further review work.
__________________________________________________________________________ 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