Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Do we need to clean up resource_id after deletion?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Zane Bitter wrote: > On 02/11/13 05:30, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> Excerpts from Christopher Armstrong's message of 2013-11-01 11:34:56 >> -0700: >> >>> Vijendar and I are trying to figure out if we need to set the resource_id >>> of a resource to None when it's being deleted. >>> >>> This is done in a few resources, but not everywhere. To me it seems >>> either >>> >>> a) redundant, since the resource is going to be deleted anyway (thus >>> deleting the row in the DB that has the resource_id column) >>> b) actively harmful to useful debuggability, since if the resource is >>> soft-deleted, you'll not be able to find out what physical resource it >>> represented before it's cleaned up. >>> >>> Is there some specific reason we should be calling resource_id_set(None) >>> in >>> a check_delete_complete method? >>> >>> >> I've often wondered why some do it, and some don't. >> >> Seems to me that it should be done not inside each resource plugin but >> in the generic resource handling code. >> >> However, I have not given this much thought. Perhaps others can provide >> insight into why it has been done that way. >> > > There was a time in the very early days of Heat development when deleting > something that had already disappeared usually resulted in an error (i.e. > we mostly weren't catching NotFound exceptions). I expect this habit dates > from that era. > > I can't think of any reason we still need this, and I agree that it seems > unhelpful for debugging. > > cheers, > Zane. > > Thanks Zane and others who have responded. My recent patch (now already merged) won't delete the resource_id. -- IRC: radix Christopher Armstrong Rackspace ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Do we need to clean up resource_id after deletion?
On 02/11/13 05:30, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Christopher Armstrong's message of 2013-11-01 11:34:56 -0700: Vijendar and I are trying to figure out if we need to set the resource_id of a resource to None when it's being deleted. This is done in a few resources, but not everywhere. To me it seems either a) redundant, since the resource is going to be deleted anyway (thus deleting the row in the DB that has the resource_id column) b) actively harmful to useful debuggability, since if the resource is soft-deleted, you'll not be able to find out what physical resource it represented before it's cleaned up. Is there some specific reason we should be calling resource_id_set(None) in a check_delete_complete method? I've often wondered why some do it, and some don't. Seems to me that it should be done not inside each resource plugin but in the generic resource handling code. However, I have not given this much thought. Perhaps others can provide insight into why it has been done that way. There was a time in the very early days of Heat development when deleting something that had already disappeared usually resulted in an error (i.e. we mostly weren't catching NotFound exceptions). I expect this habit dates from that era. I can't think of any reason we still need this, and I agree that it seems unhelpful for debugging. cheers, Zane. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Do we need to clean up resource_id after deletion?
My thoughts exactly. I meant to dig into the soft-delete code to see if those changes handled resource_id differently but I got to traveling and forgot. IMO, if it universally needs doing, then it should be done in resource.Resource and be cognizant of deletion policy. From: Clint Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:30 PM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Do we need to clean up resource_id after deletion? Excerpts from Christopher Armstrong's message of 2013-11-01 11:34:56 -0700: > Vijendar and I are trying to figure out if we need to set the resource_id > of a resource to None when it's being deleted. > > This is done in a few resources, but not everywhere. To me it seems either > > a) redundant, since the resource is going to be deleted anyway (thus > deleting the row in the DB that has the resource_id column) > b) actively harmful to useful debuggability, since if the resource is > soft-deleted, you'll not be able to find out what physical resource it > represented before it's cleaned up. > > Is there some specific reason we should be calling resource_id_set(None) in > a check_delete_complete method? > I've often wondered why some do it, and some don't. Seems to me that it should be done not inside each resource plugin but in the generic resource handling code. However, I have not given this much thought. Perhaps others can provide insight into why it has been done that way. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Do we need to clean up resource_id after deletion?
Excerpts from Christopher Armstrong's message of 2013-11-01 11:34:56 -0700: > Vijendar and I are trying to figure out if we need to set the resource_id > of a resource to None when it's being deleted. > > This is done in a few resources, but not everywhere. To me it seems either > > a) redundant, since the resource is going to be deleted anyway (thus > deleting the row in the DB that has the resource_id column) > b) actively harmful to useful debuggability, since if the resource is > soft-deleted, you'll not be able to find out what physical resource it > represented before it's cleaned up. > > Is there some specific reason we should be calling resource_id_set(None) in > a check_delete_complete method? > I've often wondered why some do it, and some don't. Seems to me that it should be done not inside each resource plugin but in the generic resource handling code. However, I have not given this much thought. Perhaps others can provide insight into why it has been done that way. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
