date:20140326

Re: [jclouds] Delete objects in a container efficiently. (#214)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-pull-requests 
#695](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/695/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/214#issuecomment-38655749

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-pull-requests 
#696](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/696/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38656044

Re: [jclouds] Delete objects in a container efficiently. (#214)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests 
#1165](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1165/) 
SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/214#issuecomment-38656006

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-515: Don't require availability zone when creating volumes in cinder (#327)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

Could you add a live test to the `VolumeAndSnapshotApiLiveTest` to assert that 
volumes can actually be created without the AZ?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/327#issuecomment-38656429

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests 
#1166](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1166/) 
SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38656420

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

[jclouds » jclouds 
#952](https://buildhive.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds/job/jclouds/952/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
[(what's this?)](https://www.cloudbees.com/what-is-buildhive)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38657437

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread psiniemi

I think the whole authentication login with these ssh connections needs a 
rethink at some point (hopefully not with this pull request though). The way I, 
as a user, would like it to work is that I just pile on authentication methods 
that have some hope of succeeding and then when connecting we run through those 
until one succeeds or we run out of candidates.

As it currently is implemented, the connections will only try ssh-agent if 
there is no other method defined.

Also the ```isAvailable()``` logic and how it is used inside the agent proxy 
librabry is very limited currently. For example on windows that will always 
return true and this will lead to ```createConnector()``` returning a 
```PageantConnector``` regardless of whether one is actually running. Also 
there is no way of using the OpenSSH ssh-agent on windows currently. I imagine 
it would require some extra code since on unixes the communication goes over 
unix sockets with jna native integration. However these are limitations in 
jsch-agentproxy implementation. And IMO this pull request represents 
functionality that is significantly better than having no ssh-agent support.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38659488

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

> @@ -152,7 +163,7 @@ public void clear() {
> }
>  
> @Override
> -   public Session create() throws Exception {
> +   public synchronized Session create() throws Exception {

Have you experienced concurrency issues? In theory, the ssh client factory will 
create independent clients, and each one will have its own connection. Is there 
any use case where the same client and connection is used simultaneously by 
different users/clients/actors? (Such use case does not exist in 
jclouds-compute).

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10967503

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

> @@ -63,9 +77,14 @@ public Factory(ProxyConfig proxyConfig, 
> BackoffLimitedRetryHandler backoffLimite
>  
>@Override
>public SshClient create(HostAndPort socket, LoginCredentials 
> credentials) {
> - SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout);
> + SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout, 
> getAgentConnector());

Reuse the `agentConnector` variable, as it is already initialized?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10967539

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread psiniemi

> @@ -152,7 +163,7 @@ public void clear() {
> }
>  
> @Override
> -   public Session create() throws Exception {
> +   public synchronized Session create() throws Exception {

Just looked inside the code for the connectors and the connectors have native 
libraries as instance variables without any locks.

The libraries are pretty basic so I guess they may be thread safe, but for 
windows I have no way of testing this.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10967742

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

>The way I, as a user, would like it to work is that I just pile on 
>authentication methods that have some hope of succeeding and then when 
>connecting we run through those until one succeeds or we run out of candidates.

Agree. Upon connection failure, now the drivers retry the connection with the 
same credentials. Drivers could do it better and try the different auth methods 
(if there is enough info to try them). In SSHJ there is an explicit auth 
exception (don't know in JSCH but it should be possible too), so it should be 
pretty straightforward to implement.

Mind filing a JIRA issue for this? We can address this once this PR has been 
merged.

>And IMO this pull request represents functionality that is significantly 
>better than having no ssh-agent support.

Absolutely :) I look foward to having this in!

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38660756

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread psiniemi

> @@ -63,9 +77,14 @@ public Factory(ProxyConfig proxyConfig, 
> BackoffLimitedRetryHandler backoffLimite
>  
>@Override
>public SshClient create(HostAndPort socket, LoginCredentials 
> credentials) {
> - SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout);
> + SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout, 
> getAgentConnector());

Since Factory is a singleton, then all connections would share the same 
connector? Would you rather protect against potential concurrency problems only 
when you run into them?

My use case only uses one ssh connection so right now this would not affect me 
either way...

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10967937

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

> @@ -63,9 +77,14 @@ public Factory(ProxyConfig proxyConfig, 
> BackoffLimitedRetryHandler backoffLimite
>  
>@Override
>public SshClient create(HostAndPort socket, LoginCredentials 
> credentials) {
> - SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout);
> + SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout, 
> getAgentConnector());

I see. So there is one new connector that is passed to each client, and one 
singleton connector that is used to check the presence of the agent.
I'm fine with this, but does the `Connector` open a connection or does it 
allocate resources we would want to close once we know it is available? I mean 
if it does keep a connection or similar, perhaps it is better to just keep an 
`isAvailable` boolean variable instead of the singleton Connector.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10968181

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread psiniemi

> @@ -63,9 +77,14 @@ public Factory(ProxyConfig proxyConfig, 
> BackoffLimitedRetryHandler backoffLimite
>  
>@Override
>public SshClient create(HostAndPort socket, LoginCredentials 
> credentials) {
> - SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout);
> + SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout, 
> getAgentConnector());

Current implementations of connector do not have any connections outside of the 
query method.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10968271

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

> @@ -63,9 +77,14 @@ public Factory(ProxyConfig proxyConfig, 
> BackoffLimitedRetryHandler backoffLimite
>  
>@Override
>public SshClient create(HostAndPort socket, LoginCredentials 
> credentials) {
> - SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout);
> + SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout, 
> getAgentConnector());

It is ok for me then. Thanks for explaining!

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10968324

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread psiniemi

> @@ -63,9 +77,14 @@ public Factory(ProxyConfig proxyConfig, 
> BackoffLimitedRetryHandler backoffLimite
>  
>@Override
>public SshClient create(HostAndPort socket, LoginCredentials 
> credentials) {
> - SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout);
> + SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout, 
> getAgentConnector());

Current implementations of connector do not have any connections outside of the 
query method.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10968348

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread psiniemi

> @@ -63,9 +77,14 @@ public Factory(ProxyConfig proxyConfig, 
> BackoffLimitedRetryHandler backoffLimite
>  
>@Override
>public SshClient create(HostAndPort socket, LoginCredentials 
> credentials) {
> - SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout);
> + SshClient client = new JschSshClient(proxyConfig, 
> backoffLimitedRetryHandler, socket, credentials, timeout, 
> getAgentConnector());

Current implementations of connector do not have any connections outside of the 
query method.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10968670

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> @@ -156,6 +157,15 @@ public String getPrivateKey() {
> }
>  
> /**
> +* @return true if there is a private key attached that is not encrypted
> +*/
> +   public boolean hasUnencryptedPrivateKey() {
> +  return getPrivateKey() != null
> + && !getPrivateKey().isEmpty()
> + && !getPrivateKey().contains(Pems.PROC_TYPE_ENCRYPTED);

OK, makes sense then. Do we need a case-insensitive comparison here, perhaps?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10974718

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> +
> +  
> +
> +  com.jcraft
> +  jsch.agentproxy.core
> +  0.0.7
> +
> +
> +  com.jcraft
> +  jsch.agentproxy.connector-factory
> +  0.0.7
> +
> +  
> +  
> +com.jcraft.jsch.agentproxy
> +  

OK, thanks. Then fine with the exception.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10974759

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> I look foward to having this in!

Me too! The updated version looks good to me - just @nacx's question about 
synchronization to go, I guess? Thanks for making the latest round of changes, 
@psiniemi!

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38684961

Re: [jclouds] Implement a poor-mans rollback if static nat creation fails (#184)

2014-03-26 Thread Hugo Trippaers

@demobox @nacx Been a while, but it works fine with current master.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/184#issuecomment-38692063

[jclouds] JCLOUDS-347 Implement a poor-mans rollback if static nat creation fails (#328)

2014-03-26 Thread Hugo Trippaers

As discussed in https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/184 here is a new patch 
for master.

Cheers,

Hugo
You can merge this Pull Request by running:

  git pull https://github.com/spark404/jclouds JCLOUDS-347-1.8.x

Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:

  https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/328

-- Commit Summary --

  * Implement a poor-mans rollback if static nat creation fails

-- File Changes --

M 
apis/cloudstack/src/main/java/org/jclouds/cloudstack/compute/strategy/CloudStackComputeServiceAdapter.java
 (44)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/328.patch
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/328.diff

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/328

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-347 Implement a poor-mans rollback if static nat creation fails (#328)

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

[jclouds » jclouds 
#953](https://buildhive.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds/job/jclouds/953/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
[(what's this?)](https://www.cloudbees.com/what-is-buildhive)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/328#issuecomment-38699461

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-347 Implement a poor-mans rollback if static nat creation fails (#328)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-pull-requests 
#697](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/697/) UNSTABLE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/328#issuecomment-38700999

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-347 Implement a poor-mans rollback if static nat creation fails (#328)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests 
#1167](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1167/) 
SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/328#issuecomment-38701861

Re: [jclouds] Refactor SoftLayer CCI support (#296)

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

[jclouds » jclouds 
#954](https://buildhive.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds/job/jclouds/954/) UNSTABLE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request
[(what's this?)](https://www.cloudbees.com/what-is-buildhive)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/296#issuecomment-38706561

Jenkins build became unstable: jclouds » jclouds #954

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

See

Re: [jclouds] Refactor SoftLayer CCI support (#296)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-pull-requests 
#699](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/699/) UNSTABLE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/296#issuecomment-38707059

Re: [jclouds] Refactor SoftLayer CCI support (#296)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-pull-requests 
#698](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/698/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/296#issuecomment-38707154

Re: [jclouds] Refactor SoftLayer CCI support (#296)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests 
#1169](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1169/) 
UNSTABLE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/296#issuecomment-38707691

Re: [jclouds] Refactor SoftLayer CCI support (#296)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests 
#1168](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1168/) 
SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/296#issuecomment-38707818

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread psiniemi

> @@ -152,7 +163,7 @@ public void clear() {
> }
>  
> @Override
> -   public Session create() throws Exception {
> +   public synchronized Session create() throws Exception {

So if one client is only ever used to create one session, there is no need for 
synchronization here. Shall I just remove it?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10987347

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

> @@ -152,7 +163,7 @@ public void clear() {
> }
>  
> @Override
> -   public Session create() throws Exception {
> +   public synchronized Session create() throws Exception {

I'd say yes. There is no direct use case in jclouds where a client is
shared between multiple "actors", so I'd just remove it.
Thanks!
El 26/03/2014 18:19, "psiniemi"  escribió:

> In drivers/jsch/src/main/java/org/jclouds/ssh/jsch/SessionConnection.java:
>
> > @@ -152,7 +163,7 @@ public void clear() {
> > }
> >
> > @Override
> > -   public Session create() throws Exception {
> > +   public synchronized Session create() throws Exception {
>
> So if one client is only ever used to create one session, there is no need
> for synchronization here. Shall I just remove it?
>
> --
> Reply to this email directly or view it on 
> GitHub
> .
>

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312/files#r10988944

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

[jclouds » jclouds 
#955](https://buildhive.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds/job/jclouds/955/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
[(what's this?)](https://www.cloudbees.com/what-is-buildhive)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38722679

Jenkins build is back to stable : jclouds » jclouds #955

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

See

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-pull-requests 
#700](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/700/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38724118

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests 
#1170](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1170/) 
SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38724813

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-515: Don't require availability zone when creating volumes in cinder (#327)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-pull-requests 
#701](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/701/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/327#issuecomment-38727091

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-515: Don't require availability zone when creating volumes in cinder (#327)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests 
#1171](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1171/) 
SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/327#issuecomment-38727828

[jira] [Updated] (JCLOUDS-515) Cinder volume create does not require availability zone

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews (JIRA)


 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Everett Toews updated JCLOUDS-515:
--

Assignee: Jasdeep Hundal

> Cinder volume create does not require availability zone
> ---
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-515
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: jclouds-core
>Affects Versions: 1.7.1
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>Assignee: Jasdeep Hundal
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Openstack Cinder does not require specifying an availability zone for volume 
> creation, but the Cinder API as implemented in JClouds does. We should change 
> the check in the constructor of org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain to 
> allow a null value for availability zone.
> The docs on the v1 API are not readily available but tracing through the 
> Cinder source code, we find this line that gets executed if we specify no 
> availability zone in either the v1 or v2 block storage APIs:
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/flows/api/create_volume.py#L247
> It can also be noted the the Block Storage v2 request here does not require 
> an availability zone:
> http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-block-storage/2.0/content/POST_createVolume_v2__tenant_id__volumes_Volumes.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-515: Don't require availability zone when creating volumes in cinder (#327)

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

[jclouds » jclouds 
#956](https://buildhive.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds/job/jclouds/956/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
[(what's this?)](https://www.cloudbees.com/what-is-buildhive)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/327#issuecomment-38728902

Re: [jclouds] Refactor SoftLayer CCI support (#296)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-pull-requests 
#702](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/702/) UNSTABLE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/296#issuecomment-38732537

Re: [jclouds] Refactor SoftLayer CCI support (#296)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests 
#1172](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1172/) 
UNSTABLE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/296#issuecomment-38733101

Re: [jclouds] Refactor SoftLayer CCI support (#296)

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

[jclouds » jclouds 
#957](https://buildhive.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds/job/jclouds/957/) UNSTABLE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request
[(what's this?)](https://www.cloudbees.com/what-is-buildhive)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/296#issuecomment-38734577

Jenkins build became unstable: jclouds » jclouds #957

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

See

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-515: Don't require availability zone when creating volumes in cinder (#327)

2014-03-26 Thread jasdeep-hundal

@nacx : I removed the zone specification from the test and it passed, so I 
think this is good to go. Could add another test to use zone as well, but I'm 
not sure how valuable an additional test just for that will be.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/327#issuecomment-38735446

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-515) Cinder volume create does not require availability zone

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948419#comment-13948419
 ] 

Everett Toews commented on JCLOUDS-515:
---

The Volume domain object is not actually used to create volumes. Rather, it's 
the immutable object returned by Cinder when the create call is done.

>From create_volume.py we see that Cinder always sets the availability zone no 
>matter what so this value should always be present when the create call is 
>done.

>From VolumeApi.create(int , CreateVolumeOptions...) we can see that the 
>CreateVolumeOptions object is responsible for supplying the options during the 
>create call. It's here where you can optionally supply the availability zone 
>with something like CreateVolumeOptions.Builder.availabilityZone("nova").

AFAICT, this change isn't necessary unless I've mischaracterized the issue.

Jasdeep, do you have a code snippet demonstrating the problem?

> Cinder volume create does not require availability zone
> ---
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-515
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: jclouds-core
>Affects Versions: 1.7.1
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>Assignee: Jasdeep Hundal
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Openstack Cinder does not require specifying an availability zone for volume 
> creation, but the Cinder API as implemented in JClouds does. We should change 
> the check in the constructor of org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain to 
> allow a null value for availability zone.
> The docs on the v1 API are not readily available but tracing through the 
> Cinder source code, we find this line that gets executed if we specify no 
> availability zone in either the v1 or v2 block storage APIs:
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/flows/api/create_volume.py#L247
> It can also be noted the the Block Storage v2 request here does not require 
> an availability zone:
> http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-block-storage/2.0/content/POST_createVolume_v2__tenant_id__volumes_Volumes.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-515: Don't require availability zone when creating volumes in cinder (#327)

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews

@jasdeep-hundal @nacx I made [a 
comment](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?focusedCommentId=13948419&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13948419)
 that was more appropriate to be made over in the issue.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/327#issuecomment-38736206

Re: [jclouds] Delete objects in a container efficiently. (#214)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Gaul

> }
>  
> -   private boolean parentIsFolder(final ListContainerOptions options, final 
> StorageMetadata md) {
> -  return options.getDir() != null && md.getName().indexOf('/') == -1;
> +   private void waitForCompletion(final Semaphore semaphore,
> + final Set> outstandingFutures) {
> +  // Wait for all futures to complete by waiting to acquire all
> +  // semaphores.
> +  try {
> + // TODO: Each individual blob delete operation itself has a time
> + // limit of 'maxTime'. Therefore having a time limit for this
> + // semaphore acquisition provides little value. This could be
> + // removed.

I removed the timeout as the comment suggests since we can easily encounter 
this situation with large containers.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/214/files#r10997822

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

Only the minor question about a possible case-insensitive check for the 
"encrypted header" from me, otherwise +1 - looks good. @nacx: Any more 
questions from you?

I guess we want want to backport this to 1.7.x? And we should probably create 
an issue for this, just for housekeeping...

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38737396

Re: [jclouds] Delete objects in a container efficiently. (#214)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Gaul

I committed to master with some Checkstyle, Javadoc, and indentation fixes.  
Let's address some of the TODOs and test more before backporting to 1.7.x.  
Thank you for your contribution @shrinandj !  The previous implementation has 
troubled us for some years now.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/214#issuecomment-38737591

Re: [jclouds] Delete objects in a container efficiently. (#214)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Gaul

Closed #214.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/214

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-510) Head-of-line blocking problem with DeleteAllKeysInList

2014-03-26 Thread ASF subversion and git services (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-510?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948439#comment-13948439
 ] 

ASF subversion and git services commented on JCLOUDS-510:
-

Commit 655aa444d71d8a24ac831fa4c3d365042c4a8ebb in jclouds's branch 
refs/heads/master from [~shrinand]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=jclouds.git;h=655aa44 ]

JCLOUDS-510 Delete objects in a container efficiently.

The existing approach for deleting objects in a container suffers
from a head-of-line blocking problem. This commit implements a better
scheme which does not have that problem. This scheme uses a counting
semaphore for making sure that a certain number of futures are
issued in parallel. As each of these futures is completed, one
permit of the semaphore is released.

Added unit tests for testing this new scheme.


> Head-of-line blocking problem with DeleteAllKeysInList
> --
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-510
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-510
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: jclouds-blobstore
>Affects Versions: 1.8.0, 1.7.1
>Reporter: Shri Javadekar
>Assignee: Shri Javadekar
> Fix For: 1.8.0, 1.7.2
>
>
> The current implementation of DeleteAllKeysInList suffers from the 
> head-of-line blocking problem. It gets a PageSet of blobs from the container, 
> creates futures for deleting them and waits for the futures to complete 
> before getting the next PageSet. 
> This issue was originally reported by Andrew Gaul [~gaul] [1]
> -Shri
> [1] https://github.com/jclouds/legacy-jclouds/issues/1087



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-515) Cinder volume create does not require availability zone

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948446#comment-13948446
 ] 

Andrew Phillips commented on JCLOUDS-515:
-

> Openstack Cinder does not require specifying an availability zone for volume 
> creation, but
> the Cinder API as implemented in JClouds does.

Assuming we're talking about VolumeApi.create [1], [~everett-toews] is right, 
from what I can see: jclouds does not force you to specify an AZ to create a 
volume. Are you referring to a different call here?

[1] 
http://javadocs.jclouds.cloudbees.net/org/jclouds/openstack/cinder/v1/features/VolumeApi.html#create(int,
 org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.options.CreateVolumeOptions...)

> Cinder volume create does not require availability zone
> ---
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-515
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: jclouds-core
>Affects Versions: 1.7.1
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>Assignee: Jasdeep Hundal
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Openstack Cinder does not require specifying an availability zone for volume 
> creation, but the Cinder API as implemented in JClouds does. We should change 
> the check in the constructor of org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain to 
> allow a null value for availability zone.
> The docs on the v1 API are not readily available but tracing through the 
> Cinder source code, we find this line that gets executed if we specify no 
> availability zone in either the v1 or v2 block storage APIs:
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/flows/api/create_volume.py#L247
> It can also be noted the the Block Storage v2 request here does not require 
> an availability zone:
> http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-block-storage/2.0/content/POST_createVolume_v2__tenant_id__volumes_Volumes.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-514) Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948450#comment-13948450
 ] 

Everett Toews commented on JCLOUDS-514:
---

This will be a nice addition to jclouds. Thanks for taking this on Jasdeep.

In the description, linking to API docs rather than CLI docs is preferable. 
Although I haven't been able to find the API docs for this yet...they may not 
exist. If you can find them, please do link to them here.

If you've actually done this with the Nova CLI with --debug turned on, paste in 
the relevant JSON sent in the request. 

Remember, the more info you can give us the better.

> Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova
> 
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-514
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: jclouds-compute, jclouds-core
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>  Labels: features
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
> time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.
> See:
> - (Grizzly and older): 
> http://docs.openstack.org/grizzly/openstack-compute/admin/content/instance-creation.html
> - (Icehouse): 
> http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide/content/create_volume_from_image_and_boot.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-515: Don't require availability zone when creating volumes in cinder (#327)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> I made a comment that was more appropriate to be made over in the issue.

Good catch, @everett-toews. Thanks!

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/327#issuecomment-38738453

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews

> @@ -102,6 +103,27 @@ public String toString() {
>  
> }
>  
> +   public static class BlockDevice{

Are you confident that BlockDevice will only ever be used within the context of 
CreateServerOptions?

Also there should be a space before the {

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10998875

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread jasdeep-hundal

> @@ -102,6 +103,27 @@ public String toString() {
>  
> }
>  
> +   public static class BlockDevice{

Going to work through getting this running through the ComputeServiceApi this 
week, should have a good answer for you then. Right now, I'm not sure.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999079

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews

> @@ -102,6 +103,27 @@ public String toString() {
>  
> }
>  
> +   public static class BlockDevice{
> +  @Named("volume_size")
> +  String volumeSize = "";
> +  @Named("volume_id")
> +  String volumeId;
> +  @Named("delete_on_termination")
> +  int deleteOnTermination = 0;
> +  @Named("device_name")
> +  String deviceName;
> +
> +  public BlockDevice(String volumeId, String deviceName){
> + this(volumeId, deviceName, true);
> +  }
> +
> +  public BlockDevice(String volumeId, String deviceName, boolean 
> deleteWhenInstanceTerminated){

We don't typically expose ctors like here and above directly. These should be 
factory methods.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999095

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> @@ -102,6 +103,27 @@ public String toString() {
>  
> }
>  
> +   public static class BlockDevice{
> +  @Named("volume_size")
> +  String volumeSize = "";
> +  @Named("volume_id")
> +  String volumeId;
> +  @Named("delete_on_termination")
> +  int deleteOnTermination = 0;
> +  @Named("device_name")
> +  String deviceName;
> +
> +  public BlockDevice(String volumeId, String deviceName){

[minor] Space before `{`

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999123

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> +  String volumeSize = "";
> +  @Named("volume_id")
> +  String volumeId;
> +  @Named("delete_on_termination")
> +  int deleteOnTermination = 0;
> +  @Named("device_name")
> +  String deviceName;
> +
> +  public BlockDevice(String volumeId, String deviceName){
> + this(volumeId, deviceName, true);
> +  }
> +
> +  public BlockDevice(String volumeId, String deviceName, boolean 
> deleteWhenInstanceTerminated){
> + this.volumeId = volumeId;
> + this.deviceName = deviceName;
> + this.deleteOnTermination = deleteWhenInstanceTerminated ? 1 : 0;

No need to use a different parameter name here. @everett-toews: would you 
normally do something like creating constants for 0 and 1 here? Or is there 
some kind of "boolean to string JSON mapper" we could use?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999246

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> @@ -113,6 +135,7 @@ public String toString() {
> private Set novaNetworks = ImmutableSet.of();
> private String availabilityZone;
> private boolean configDrive;
> +   private List blockDeviceMapping = Lists.newArrayList();

`ImmutableList.of()`?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999274

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews

> +  String volumeSize = "";
> +  @Named("volume_id")
> +  String volumeId;
> +  @Named("delete_on_termination")
> +  int deleteOnTermination = 0;
> +  @Named("device_name")
> +  String deviceName;
> +
> +  public BlockDevice(String volumeId, String deviceName){
> + this(volumeId, deviceName, true);
> +  }
> +
> +  public BlockDevice(String volumeId, String deviceName, boolean 
> deleteWhenInstanceTerminated){
> + this.volumeId = volumeId;
> + this.deviceName = deviceName;
> + this.deleteOnTermination = deleteWhenInstanceTerminated ? 1 : 0;

I'm okay with the way it's implemented here. You could do a mapper or binder 
but I honestly don't think all that code is worth it in this case.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999427

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> @@ -155,6 +178,8 @@ protected ToStringHelper string() {
>   toString.add("networks", networks);
>toString.add("availability_zone", availabilityZone == null ? null : 
> availabilityZone);
>toString.add("configDrive", configDrive);
> +  if (!blockDeviceMapping.isEmpty())

Much as I prefer `!isEmpty` over `size() > 0`, the latter is used everywhere 
else in this method, so switch to that?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999425

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews

> @@ -155,6 +178,8 @@ protected ToStringHelper string() {
>   toString.add("networks", networks);
>toString.add("availability_zone", availabilityZone == null ? null : 
> availabilityZone);
>toString.add("configDrive", configDrive);
> +  if (!blockDeviceMapping.isEmpty())

I think he should stick with mine and your preference and go with isEmpty

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999478

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> @@ -463,6 +494,21 @@ public CreateServerOptions networks(String... networks) {
>return networks(ImmutableSet.copyOf(networks));
> }
>  
> +   /**
> +* Block volumes that should be attached to the instance at boot time
> +*/
> +   public List getBlockDeviceMapping() {
> +  return blockDeviceMapping;
> +   }

Can you move this method to after `blockDeviceMapping`? A cleanup of this class 
that untangled the current mix of getters and "builder option" methods would be 
nice, but that's not really part of this PR, I guess.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999601

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> @@ -463,6 +494,21 @@ public CreateServerOptions networks(String... networks) {
>return networks(ImmutableSet.copyOf(networks));
> }
>  
> +   /**
> +* Block volumes that should be attached to the instance at boot time
> +*/
> +   public List getBlockDeviceMapping() {
> +  return blockDeviceMapping;
> +   }
> +
> +   /**
> +* @see #getBlockDeviceMapping
> +*/
> +   public CreateServerOptions blockDeviceMapping(List 
> blockDeviceMapping) {
> +  this.blockDeviceMapping = blockDeviceMapping;

`ImmutableList.copyOf(blockDeviceMapping)`

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999736

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> +  String volumeSize = "";
> +  @Named("volume_id")
> +  String volumeId;
> +  @Named("delete_on_termination")
> +  int deleteOnTermination = 0;
> +  @Named("device_name")
> +  String deviceName;
> +
> +  public BlockDevice(String volumeId, String deviceName){
> + this(volumeId, deviceName, true);
> +  }
> +
> +  public BlockDevice(String volumeId, String deviceName, boolean 
> deleteWhenInstanceTerminated){
> + this.volumeId = volumeId;
> + this.deviceName = deviceName;
> + this.deleteOnTermination = deleteWhenInstanceTerminated ? 1 : 0;

> You could do a mapper or binder but I honestly don't think all that code is 
> worth it in this case.

If we don't have one off the shelf that we could simply plug in - fully agree. 
Thanks!

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r10999762

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-514) Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948481#comment-13948481
 ] 

Everett Toews commented on JCLOUDS-514:
---

The two CLI docs linked to here seem to be for two different things. The 
(Grizzly and older) link is for attaching a volume on boot, whereas the 
(Icehouse) link is for booting from a volume, snapshot, or image.

What's the intent of this change?

If it's just attaching on boot then please remove the (Icehouse) link.

> Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova
> 
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-514
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: jclouds-compute, jclouds-core
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>  Labels: features
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
> time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.
> See:
> - (Grizzly and older): 
> http://docs.openstack.org/grizzly/openstack-compute/admin/content/instance-creation.html
> - (Icehouse): 
> http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide/content/create_volume_from_image_and_boot.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: [jclouds] Delete objects in a container efficiently. (#214)

2014-03-26 Thread Shri Javadekar

Thanks a lot @andrewgaul 

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/214#issuecomment-38741560

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews

> @@ -102,6 +103,27 @@ public String toString() {
>  
> }
>  
> +   public static class BlockDevice{

My suggestion would be to get it running properly in the NovaApi with expect 
tests and live tests first. That stuff really needs to be done before you can 
add proper support in the ComputeService anyway. We'll wind up with a better 
feature this way. 

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r11000148

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews

We'll also need more Javadoc for all of the parameters that can be used to 
create a BlockDevice.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326#issuecomment-38742092

[jira] [Updated] (JCLOUDS-514) Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova

2014-03-26 Thread Jasdeep Hundal (JIRA)


 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Jasdeep Hundal updated JCLOUDS-514:
---

Description: 
The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.

Example Nova JSON:
{"server": {"name": "jasdeep-test", "imageRef": 
"ed5912af-ff25-4ff3-bbec-6c00898c14b8", "block_device_mapping": 
[{"volume_size": "", "volume_id": "f696b2aa-4c83-40ad-ab25-984b59dd2e3c", 
"delete_on_termination": "1", "device_name": "vda"}], "flavorRef": "small", 
"max_count": 1, "min_count": 1}}

  was:
The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.

See:
- (Grizzly and older): 
http://docs.openstack.org/grizzly/openstack-compute/admin/content/instance-creation.html
- (Icehouse): 
http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide/content/create_volume_from_image_and_boot.html


> Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova
> 
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-514
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: jclouds-compute, jclouds-core
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>  Labels: features
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
> time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.
> Example Nova JSON:
> {"server": {"name": "jasdeep-test", "imageRef": 
> "ed5912af-ff25-4ff3-bbec-6c00898c14b8", "block_device_mapping": 
> [{"volume_size": "", "volume_id": "f696b2aa-4c83-40ad-ab25-984b59dd2e3c", 
> "delete_on_termination": "1", "device_name": "vda"}], "flavorRef": "small", 
> "max_count": 1, "min_count": 1}}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-514) Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova

2014-03-26 Thread Jasdeep Hundal (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948499#comment-13948499
 ] 

Jasdeep Hundal commented on JCLOUDS-514:


That was a bit for a derp on a blind copy for other things I was doing, just 
pasted the Nova request json now.

> Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova
> 
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-514
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: jclouds-compute, jclouds-core
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>  Labels: features
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
> time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.
> See:
> - (Grizzly and older): 
> http://docs.openstack.org/grizzly/openstack-compute/admin/content/instance-creation.html
> - (Icehouse): 
> http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide/content/create_volume_from_image_and_boot.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-514) Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948511#comment-13948511
 ] 

Everett Toews commented on JCLOUDS-514:
---

I think the (Icehouse) link you really want is 
http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide/content/create_new_volume_before_instance.html

That's to "Attach non-bootable volume to an instance". The URL is horribly 
misleading. 

What do you think?

> Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova
> 
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-514
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: jclouds-compute, jclouds-core
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>  Labels: features
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
> time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.
> Example Nova JSON:
> {"server": {"name": "jasdeep-test", "imageRef": 
> "ed5912af-ff25-4ff3-bbec-6c00898c14b8", "block_device_mapping": 
> [{"volume_size": "", "volume_id": "f696b2aa-4c83-40ad-ab25-984b59dd2e3c", 
> "delete_on_termination": "1", "device_name": "vda"}], "flavorRef": "small", 
> "max_count": 1, "min_count": 1}}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-514) Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948520#comment-13948520
 ] 

Everett Toews commented on JCLOUDS-514:
---

For the record, there are two similarly named things that were causing me a bit 
of confusion. 

AFAICT, when booting a Nova server you can attach block devices or boot from 
block devices. The flags in the Nova are similar:

block-device-mapping == attach block devices
block-device == boot from block device

> Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova
> 
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-514
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: jclouds-compute, jclouds-core
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>  Labels: features
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
> time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.
> Example Nova JSON:
> {"server": {"name": "jasdeep-test", "imageRef": 
> "ed5912af-ff25-4ff3-bbec-6c00898c14b8", "block_device_mapping": 
> [{"volume_size": "", "volume_id": "f696b2aa-4c83-40ad-ab25-984b59dd2e3c", 
> "delete_on_termination": "1", "device_name": "vda"}], "flavorRef": "small", 
> "max_count": 1, "min_count": 1}}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread Everett Toews

> @@ -102,6 +103,27 @@ public String toString() {
>  
> }
>  
> +   public static class BlockDevice{

Considering there's already a feature in Nova that boots from block devices 
using the term block-device, I think it's more appropriate to call this object 
BlockDeviceMapping.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r11001032

Re: [jclouds-labs-openstack] OS Neutron Extension Router (#83)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> jclouds-labs-openstack-pull-requests #185 UNSTABLE

Glance tests [are 
failing](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-labs-openstack-pull-requests/org.apache.jclouds.labs$openstack-glance/185/testReport/)
 - I guess you are expecting that, @zack-shoylev?

If I recall, we had a follow-up PR to this planned soon. Could we address the 
following [Checkstyle 
violations](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-labs-openstack-pull-requests/185/org.apache.jclouds.labs$openstack-neutron/violations/)
 that we have introduced with this PR? Thanks!

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-openstack/pull/83#issuecomment-38744058

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-514) Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova

2014-03-26 Thread Jasdeep Hundal (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948524#comment-13948524
 ] 

Jasdeep Hundal commented on JCLOUDS-514:


This ticket is specifically for attaching, though I think the mechanism may be 
the same, just that we don't specify an image when we intend to boot from 
volume.

> Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova
> 
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-514
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: jclouds-compute, jclouds-core
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>  Labels: features
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
> time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.
> Example Nova JSON:
> {"server": {"name": "jasdeep-test", "imageRef": 
> "ed5912af-ff25-4ff3-bbec-6c00898c14b8", "block_device_mapping": 
> [{"volume_size": "", "volume_id": "f696b2aa-4c83-40ad-ab25-984b59dd2e3c", 
> "delete_on_termination": "1", "device_name": "vda"}], "flavorRef": "small", 
> "max_count": 1, "min_count": 1}}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

[jira] [Comment Edited] (JCLOUDS-514) Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova

2014-03-26 Thread Jasdeep Hundal (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948524#comment-13948524
 ] 

Jasdeep Hundal edited comment on JCLOUDS-514 at 3/26/14 9:47 PM:
-

This ticket is specifically for just attaching, though I think the mechanism 
may be the same, just that we don't specify an image when we intend to boot 
from volume.


was (Author: jasdeep):
This ticket is specifically for attaching, though I think the mechanism may be 
the same, just that we don't specify an image when we intend to boot from 
volume.

> Need to be able to attach block volumes at instance creation in Nova
> 
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-514
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-514
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>  Components: jclouds-compute, jclouds-core
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>  Labels: features
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> The Nova API allows for attaching block volumes to an instance at creation 
> time, it would be nice to access this feature through JClouds.
> Example Nova JSON:
> {"server": {"name": "jasdeep-test", "imageRef": 
> "ed5912af-ff25-4ff3-bbec-6c00898c14b8", "block_device_mapping": 
> [{"volume_size": "", "volume_id": "f696b2aa-4c83-40ad-ab25-984b59dd2e3c", 
> "delete_on_termination": "1", "device_name": "vda"}], "flavorRef": "small", 
> "max_count": 1, "min_count": 1}}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Jenkins build is back to stable : jclouds » jclouds #958

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

See

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread BuildHive

[jclouds » jclouds 
#958](https://buildhive.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds/job/jclouds/958/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
[(what's this?)](https://www.cloudbees.com/what-is-buildhive)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38744806

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-515: Don't require availability zone when creating volumes in cinder (#327)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

Yep, I see now (and agree). Thx @everett-toews !

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/327#issuecomment-38744957

[jira] [Comment Edited] (JCLOUDS-515) Cinder volume create does not require availability zone

2014-03-26 Thread Jasdeep Hundal (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948531#comment-13948531
 ] 

Jasdeep Hundal edited comment on JCLOUDS-515 at 3/26/14 9:57 PM:
-

This was a fix because I did run into this, and probably should have pasted 
that in the ticket... :P

Code:
{code:title=CinderVolumeCreate.java|borderStyle=solid}
Properties properties = new Properties();
// Assume properties set properly
CinderApi cinderApi = builder.overrides(properties).buildApi(CinderApi.class);
VolumeApi cinderVolumeApi = cinderApi.getVolumeApiForZone("RegionOne");

CreateVolumeOptions volumeOptions = new CreateVolumeOptions();
volumeOptions.name("test");
volumeOptions.volumeType("type");
cinderVolumeApi.create(size, volumeOptions);
{code}

Traceback:
{code}
java.lang.NullPointerException: zone
at 
com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkNotNull(Preconditions.java:229)
at org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain.Volume.(Volume.java:244)
at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method)
at 
sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57)
at 
sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45)
at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:526)
at 
com.google.common.reflect.Invokable$ConstructorInvokable.invokeInternal(Invokable.java:242)
at com.google.common.reflect.Invokable.invoke(Invokable.java:102)
at 
org.jclouds.json.internal.DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$DeserializeIntoParameterizedConstructor.newInstance(DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:215)
at 
org.jclouds.json.internal.DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$DeserializeIntoParameterizedConstructor.read(DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:195)
at com.google.gson.Gson.fromJson(Gson.java:803)
at 
org.jclouds.http.functions.ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.apply(ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.java:83)
at 
org.jclouds.http.functions.ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.apply(ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.java:47)
at 
org.jclouds.rest.internal.InvokeHttpMethod.invoke(InvokeHttpMethod.java:93)
at 
org.jclouds.rest.internal.InvokeHttpMethod.apply(InvokeHttpMethod.java:76)
at 
org.jclouds.rest.internal.InvokeHttpMethod.apply(InvokeHttpMethod.java:47)
at 
org.jclouds.reflect.FunctionalReflection$FunctionalInvocationHandler.handleInvocation(FunctionalReflection.java:117)
at 
com.google.common.reflect.AbstractInvocationHandler.invoke(AbstractInvocationHandler.java:87)
at com.sun.proxy.$Proxy89.create(Unknown Source)
...
{code}



was (Author: jasdeep):
This was a fix because I did run into this, and probably should have pasted 
that in the ticket... :P

Code:
{code:title=CinderVolumeCreate.java|borderStyle=solid}
Properties properties = new Properties();
// Assume properties set properly
CinderApi cinderApi = builder.overrides(properties).buildApi(CinderApi.class);
VolumeApi cinderVolumeApi = cinderApi.getVolumeApiForZone("RegionOne");

CreateVolumeOptions volumeOptions = new CreateVolumeOptions();
volumeOptions.name(name);
volumeOptions.volumeType("nebula");
cinderVolumeApi.create(size, volumeOptions);
{code}

Traceback:
{code}
java.lang.NullPointerException: zone
at 
com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkNotNull(Preconditions.java:229)
at org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain.Volume.(Volume.java:244)
at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method)
at 
sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57)
at 
sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45)
at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:526)
at 
com.google.common.reflect.Invokable$ConstructorInvokable.invokeInternal(Invokable.java:242)
at com.google.common.reflect.Invokable.invoke(Invokable.java:102)
at 
org.jclouds.json.internal.DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$DeserializeIntoParameterizedConstructor.newInstance(DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:215)
at 
org.jclouds.json.internal.DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$DeserializeIntoParameterizedConstructor.read(DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:195)
at com.google.gson.Gson.fromJson(Gson.java:803)
at 
org.jclouds.http.functions.ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.apply(ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.java:83)
at 
org.jclouds.http.functions.ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.apply(ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.java:47)
at 
or

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-515) Cinder volume create does not require availability zone

2014-03-26 Thread Jasdeep Hundal (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948531#comment-13948531
 ] 

Jasdeep Hundal commented on JCLOUDS-515:


This was a fix because I did run into this, and probably should have pasted 
that in the ticket... :P

Code:
{code:title=CinderVolumeCreate.java|borderStyle=solid}
Properties properties = new Properties();
// Assume properties set properly
CinderApi cinderApi = builder.overrides(properties).buildApi(CinderApi.class);
VolumeApi cinderVolumeApi = cinderApi.getVolumeApiForZone("RegionOne");

CreateVolumeOptions volumeOptions = new CreateVolumeOptions();
volumeOptions.name(name);
volumeOptions.volumeType("nebula");
cinderVolumeApi.create(size, volumeOptions);
{code}

Traceback:
{code}
java.lang.NullPointerException: zone
at 
com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkNotNull(Preconditions.java:229)
at org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain.Volume.(Volume.java:244)
at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method)
at 
sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57)
at 
sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45)
at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:526)
at 
com.google.common.reflect.Invokable$ConstructorInvokable.invokeInternal(Invokable.java:242)
at com.google.common.reflect.Invokable.invoke(Invokable.java:102)
at 
org.jclouds.json.internal.DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$DeserializeIntoParameterizedConstructor.newInstance(DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:215)
at 
org.jclouds.json.internal.DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$DeserializeIntoParameterizedConstructor.read(DeserializationConstructorAndReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:195)
at com.google.gson.Gson.fromJson(Gson.java:803)
at 
org.jclouds.http.functions.ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.apply(ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.java:83)
at 
org.jclouds.http.functions.ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.apply(ParseFirstJsonValueNamed.java:47)
at 
org.jclouds.rest.internal.InvokeHttpMethod.invoke(InvokeHttpMethod.java:93)
at 
org.jclouds.rest.internal.InvokeHttpMethod.apply(InvokeHttpMethod.java:76)
at 
org.jclouds.rest.internal.InvokeHttpMethod.apply(InvokeHttpMethod.java:47)
at 
org.jclouds.reflect.FunctionalReflection$FunctionalInvocationHandler.handleInvocation(FunctionalReflection.java:117)
at 
com.google.common.reflect.AbstractInvocationHandler.invoke(AbstractInvocationHandler.java:87)
at com.sun.proxy.$Proxy89.create(Unknown Source)
...
{code}


> Cinder volume create does not require availability zone
> ---
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-515
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: jclouds-core
>Affects Versions: 1.7.1
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>Assignee: Jasdeep Hundal
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Openstack Cinder does not require specifying an availability zone for volume 
> creation, but the Cinder API as implemented in JClouds does. We should change 
> the check in the constructor of org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain to 
> allow a null value for availability zone.
> The docs on the v1 API are not readily available but tracing through the 
> Cinder source code, we find this line that gets executed if we specify no 
> availability zone in either the v1 or v2 block storage APIs:
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/flows/api/create_volume.py#L247
> It can also be noted the the Block Storage v2 request here does not require 
> an availability zone:
> http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-block-storage/2.0/content/POST_createVolume_v2__tenant_id__volumes_Volumes.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-515) Cinder volume create does not require availability zone

2014-03-26 Thread Jasdeep Hundal (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948532#comment-13948532
 ] 

Jasdeep Hundal commented on JCLOUDS-515:


Ah, I realize after looking at this end result of this, the volume was created, 
but constructing the Volume object as the return value is what failed.

> Cinder volume create does not require availability zone
> ---
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-515
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: jclouds-core
>Affects Versions: 1.7.1
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>Assignee: Jasdeep Hundal
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Openstack Cinder does not require specifying an availability zone for volume 
> creation, but the Cinder API as implemented in JClouds does. We should change 
> the check in the constructor of org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain to 
> allow a null value for availability zone.
> The docs on the v1 API are not readily available but tracing through the 
> Cinder source code, we find this line that gets executed if we specify no 
> availability zone in either the v1 or v2 block storage APIs:
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/flows/api/create_volume.py#L247
> It can also be noted the the Block Storage v2 request here does not require 
> an availability zone:
> http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-block-storage/2.0/content/POST_createVolume_v2__tenant_id__volumes_Volumes.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

[jira] [Comment Edited] (JCLOUDS-515) Cinder volume create does not require availability zone

2014-03-26 Thread Jasdeep Hundal (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948532#comment-13948532
 ] 

Jasdeep Hundal edited comment on JCLOUDS-515 at 3/26/14 10:02 PM:
--

Ah, I realize after looking at this end result of this, the volume was created, 
but constructing the Volume object as the return value is what failed. Not sure 
if the fix is elsewhere as a result of though (is something further up in the 
code not setting the availability zone/is that returned from Cinder?).


was (Author: jasdeep):
Ah, I realize after looking at this end result of this, the volume was created, 
but constructing the Volume object as the return value is what failed.

> Cinder volume create does not require availability zone
> ---
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-515
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: jclouds-core
>Affects Versions: 1.7.1
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>Assignee: Jasdeep Hundal
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Openstack Cinder does not require specifying an availability zone for volume 
> creation, but the Cinder API as implemented in JClouds does. We should change 
> the check in the constructor of org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain to 
> allow a null value for availability zone.
> The docs on the v1 API are not readily available but tracing through the 
> Cinder source code, we find this line that gets executed if we specify no 
> availability zone in either the v1 or v2 block storage APIs:
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/flows/api/create_volume.py#L247
> It can also be noted the the Block Storage v2 request here does not require 
> an availability zone:
> http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-block-storage/2.0/content/POST_createVolume_v2__tenant_id__volumes_Volumes.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: [jclouds] JCLOUDS-515: Don't require availability zone when creating volumes in cinder (#327)

2014-03-26 Thread jasdeep-hundal

Thanks @everett-toews , I was a little quick to jump the gun there. Left a 
comment in the ticket, but there is a fix that needs to be made, not sure if it 
is this one though.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/327#issuecomment-38746123

Re: [jclouds] WIP JCLOUDS-514: Add ability to attach block volumes at boot through the Nova ServerApi (#326)

2014-03-26 Thread jasdeep-hundal

> @@ -102,6 +103,27 @@ public String toString() {
>  
> }
>  
> +   public static class BlockDevice{

Will go that route, and I'm fine with that name change (I actually started out 
with that and then noticed that Nova called the entire list of block device 
mappings a block device mapping itself.)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/326/files#r11002003

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-pull-requests 
#703](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/703/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38746443

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

>Only the minor question about a possible case-insensitive check for the 
>"encrypted header" from me

@demobox Reading [the spec of the Proc-Type 
header](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1421#section-4.6.1.1) it seems that the 
possible values are fixed and uppercase, so I'm ok with the current check being 
case sensitive. If you're ok too I'll merge it in a while.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38746959

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-515) Cinder volume create does not require availability zone

2014-03-26 Thread Jasdeep Hundal (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948551#comment-13948551
 ] 

Jasdeep Hundal commented on JCLOUDS-515:


^ Investigating that now.

> Cinder volume create does not require availability zone
> ---
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-515
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: jclouds-core
>Affects Versions: 1.7.1
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>Assignee: Jasdeep Hundal
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Openstack Cinder does not require specifying an availability zone for volume 
> creation, but the Cinder API as implemented in JClouds does. We should change 
> the check in the constructor of org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain to 
> allow a null value for availability zone.
> The docs on the v1 API are not readily available but tracing through the 
> Cinder source code, we find this line that gets executed if we specify no 
> availability zone in either the v1 or v2 block storage APIs:
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/flows/api/create_volume.py#L247
> It can also be noted the the Block Storage v2 request here does not require 
> an availability zone:
> http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-block-storage/2.0/content/POST_createVolume_v2__tenant_id__volumes_Volumes.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Ignasi Barrera

Just seen that the comparison is now case-insensitive. A case-sensitive check, 
as it was done before, seems more correct. Mind changing this last small bit? 
I'll merge it afterwards.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38747495

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin

[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests 
#1173](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1173/) 
SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38747539

Re: [jclouds] Add ssh-agent support via jsch agentproxy (#312)

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips

> so I'm ok with the current check being case sensitive

Thanks for checking the spec, @nacx. Lazy me :-( Good to go on this one - just 
the usual squash'n'rebase, and an issue number!

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/312#issuecomment-38748053

[jira] [Commented] (JCLOUDS-515) Cinder volume create does not require availability zone

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Phillips (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13948585#comment-13948585
 ] 

Andrew Phillips commented on JCLOUDS-515:
-

Yes, this looks like it's happening when deserializing the return value. But if 
that's true, then it would seem to be at odds with [~everett-toews]'s comment 
that

> From create_volume.py we see that Cinder always sets the availability zone no 
> matter what so 
> this value should always be present when the create call is done.

Curious to see where the bug chips will fall!

> Cinder volume create does not require availability zone
> ---
>
> Key: JCLOUDS-515
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-515
> Project: jclouds
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: jclouds-core
>Affects Versions: 1.7.1
>Reporter: Jasdeep Hundal
>Assignee: Jasdeep Hundal
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Openstack Cinder does not require specifying an availability zone for volume 
> creation, but the Cinder API as implemented in JClouds does. We should change 
> the check in the constructor of org.jclouds.openstack.cinder.v1.domain to 
> allow a null value for availability zone.
> The docs on the v1 API are not readily available but tracing through the 
> Cinder source code, we find this line that gets executed if we specify no 
> availability zone in either the v1 or v2 block storage APIs:
> https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/volume/flows/api/create_volume.py#L247
> It can also be noted the the Block Storage v2 request here does not require 
> an availability zone:
> http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-block-storage/2.0/content/POST_createVolume_v2__tenant_id__volumes_Volumes.html



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Jenkins build is back to normal : jclouds-chef #802

2014-03-26 Thread jenkins-no-reply

See

Re: [jclouds-labs-openstack] OS Neutron Extension Router (#83)

2014-03-26 Thread Zack Shoylev

@demobox : Glance tests were fixed in another PR. I am working on follow up PRs 
and trying to determine scope. Thanks for reminding me about the needed 
checkstyle fixes. I will try to keep it in mind! :)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-openstack/pull/83#issuecomment-38750900

Re: [jclouds-labs-openstack] Updates to Rackspace Cloud Files CDN (#85)

2014-03-26 Thread Zack Shoylev

> +   }
> +
> +   public void testUpdate() throws Exception {
> +  for (String regionId : regions) {
> + UpdateCDNContainerOptions opts = new UpdateCDNContainerOptions();
> + opts.ttl(1234567);
> + opts.logRetention(true);
> + opts.enabled(false);
> + 
> + // update the container
> + assertTrue(api.cdnApiInRegion(regionId).update(name, opts));
> + 
> + CDNContainer container = api.cdnApiInRegion(regionId).get(name);
> + assertEquals(container.getTtl(), 1234567);
> + assertTrue(container.isLogRetentionEnabled());
> + assertFalse(container.isEnabled());

I would consider changing the test instead. Is that feasible?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-openstack/pull/85/files#r11004022

Re: [jclouds-labs-openstack] Updates to Rackspace Cloud Files CDN (#85)

2014-03-26 Thread Zack Shoylev

>return this;
> }
>  
> public static class Builder {
> -  /** @see UpdateCDNContainerOptions#ttl */
> +  /**
> +   * @see UpdateCDNContainerOptions#ttl

There was a discussion regarding @see vs text in another PR recently. What is 
the right approach?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-openstack/pull/85/files#r11004177

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 113 matches

Mail list logo