Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template
Hi, not sure why 3 will bring chaos when implemented properly. Can you abstract the "thing" (sorry, not quite familiar with Magnum) that needs FP + FP itself into a custom resource/nested stack? Then you could use single master template plus two environments (one with FP, one without), and choose which one to use right where you have this logic split in your code. Option 2 is not so bad either IMO (AFAIK Trove was doing that at sometime, not sure of current status), but the above would be nicer. Best regards, Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Yuanying OTSUKA wrote: > Hi, all. > > Now, I’m trying to implement following bp. > * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/bay-with-no-floating-ips > > This bp requires to disable/enable “floating ip resource” in heat template > dynamically. > We have 3 options to implement this. > > 1. Use “conditions function” > * > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/support-conditions-function > 2. Dynamically generate heat template using Jinja2 > 3. Separate heat template to “kubecluster-with-floatingip.yaml” and > “kubecluster-no-floatingip.yaml” > > Option 1 is easy to implement, but unfortunately this isn’t supported by > Mitaka release. > Option 2 needs a Jinja2 template support by Magnum. > Option 3 will bring chaos. > > Please let me know what you think. > > > Thanks > -OTSUKA, Yuanying > > > __ > 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 > > __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:08:02AM +0300, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: >Hi, > >not sure why 3 will bring chaos when implemented properly. I agree - heat is designed with composition in mind, and e.g in TripleO we're making heavy use of it for optional configurations and it works pretty well: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/composition.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw0JhywwA1E http://hardysteven.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/tripleo-heat-templates-part-1-roles-and.html https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/tree/master/environments >Can you abstract the "thing" (sorry, not quite familiar with Magnum) that >needs FP + FP itself into a custom resource/nested stack? Then you could >use single master template plus two environments (one with FP, one >without), and choose which one to use right where you have this logic >split in your code. Yes, this is exactly the model we make heavy use of in TripleO, it works pretty well. Note there's now an OS::Heat::None resource in heat, which makes it easy to conditionally disable things (without the need for a noop.yaml template that contains matching parameters): http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Heat::None So you'd have two environment files like: cat enable_floating.yaml: resource_registry: OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: templates/the_floating_config.yaml cat disable_floating.yaml: resource_registry: OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: OS::Heat::None Again, this pattern is well proven and works pretty well. Conditionals may provide an alternative way to do this, but at the expense of some additional complexity inside the templates. >Option 2 is not so bad either IMO (AFAIK Trove was doing that at sometime, >not sure of current status), but the above would be nicer. Yes, in the past[1] I've commented that the composition model above may be preferable to jinja templating, but recently I've realized there are pros and cons to each approach. The heat composition model works pretty well when you want to combine multiple pieces (nested stacks) which contain some mixture of different resources, but it doesn't work so well when you want to iterate over a common pattern and build a template (e.g based on a loop). You can use ResourceGroups in some cases, but that adds to the stack depth (number of nested stacks), and may not be workable for upgrades, so TripleO is now looking at some limited use of jinja2 templating also, I agree it's not so bad provided the interfaces presented to the user are carefully constrained. Steve [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/211771/ __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template
Hi, Thanks for your helpful comment. I didn’t know about the pattern you suggested. We often want to “if” or “for” etc… For example, * if private network is supplied as parameter, disable creating network resource. * if https parameter is enable, tcp 6443 port should be opened instead of 8080 at“OS::Neutron::SecurityGroup". * if https parameter is enable, loadbalancing protocol should be TCP instead of HTTP and so on. So, I want to Jinja2 template to manage it. I’ll try to use the composition model above, and also test the limited use of jinja2 templating. Thanks - OTSUKA, Yuanying 2016年5月12日(木) 17:46 Steven Hardy : > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:08:02AM +0300, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: > >Hi, > > > >not sure why 3 will bring chaos when implemented properly. > > I agree - heat is designed with composition in mind, and e.g in TripleO > we're making heavy use of it for optional configurations and it works > pretty well: > > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/composition.html > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw0JhywwA1E > > > http://hardysteven.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/tripleo-heat-templates-part-1-roles-and.html > > > https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/tree/master/environments > > >Can you abstract the "thing" (sorry, not quite familiar with Magnum) > that > >needs FP + FP itself into a custom resource/nested stack? Then you > could > >use single master template plus two environments (one with FP, one > >without), and choose which one to use right where you have this logic > >split in your code. > > Yes, this is exactly the model we make heavy use of in TripleO, it works > pretty well. > > Note there's now an OS::Heat::None resource in heat, which makes it easy to > conditionally disable things (without the need for a noop.yaml template > that contains matching parameters): > > > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Heat::None > > So you'd have two environment files like: > > cat enable_floating.yaml: > resource_registry: > OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: templates/the_floating_config.yaml > > cat disable_floating.yaml: > resource_registry: > OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: OS::Heat::None > > Again, this pattern is well proven and works pretty well. > > Conditionals may provide an alternative way to do this, but at the expense > of some additional complexity inside the templates. > > >Option 2 is not so bad either IMO (AFAIK Trove was doing that at > sometime, > >not sure of current status), but the above would be nicer. > > Yes, in the past[1] I've commented that the composition model above may be > preferable to jinja templating, but recently I've realized there are pros > and cons to each approach. > > The heat composition model works pretty well when you want to combine > multiple pieces (nested stacks) which contain some mixture of different > resources, but it doesn't work so well when you want to iterate over a > common pattern and build a template (e.g based on a loop). > > You can use ResourceGroups in some cases, but that adds to the stack depth > (number of nested stacks), and may not be workable for upgrades, so TripleO > is now looking at some limited use of jinja2 templating also, I agree it's > not so bad provided the interfaces presented to the user are carefully > constrained. > > Steve > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/211771/ > > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template
We discussed the management of Heat templates several times. It seems the consensus is to leverage the *conditionals*feature from Heat (option #1). From the past discussion, it sounds like option #2 or #3 will significantly complicate our Heat templates, thus incurring burden on maintenance. However, I agree with Yuanying that option #1 will make Newton (or newer) version of Magnum incompatible with Mitaka (or older) version of OpenStack. A solution I can think of is to have a Jinja2 version of Heat template in the contrib folder, so that operators can swap the Heat templates if they want to run newer version of Magnum with older version of OpenStack. Thoughts. Best regards, Hongbin From: Yuanying OTSUKA [mailto:yuany...@oeilvert.org] Sent: May-12-16 6:02 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template Hi, Thanks for your helpful comment. I didn’t know about the pattern you suggested. We often want to “if” or “for” etc… For example, * if private network is supplied as parameter, disable creating network resource. * if https parameter is enable, tcp 6443 port should be opened instead of 8080 at“OS::Neutron::SecurityGroup". * if https parameter is enable, loadbalancing protocol should be TCP instead of HTTP and so on. So, I want to Jinja2 template to manage it. I’ll try to use the composition model above, and also test the limited use of jinja2 templating. Thanks - OTSUKA, Yuanying 2016年5月12日(木) 17:46 Steven Hardy mailto:sha...@redhat.com>>: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:08:02AM +0300, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: >Hi, > >not sure why 3 will bring chaos when implemented properly. I agree - heat is designed with composition in mind, and e.g in TripleO we're making heavy use of it for optional configurations and it works pretty well: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/composition.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw0JhywwA1E http://hardysteven.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/tripleo-heat-templates-part-1-roles-and.html https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/tree/master/environments >Can you abstract the "thing" (sorry, not quite familiar with Magnum) that >needs FP + FP itself into a custom resource/nested stack? Then you could >use single master template plus two environments (one with FP, one >without), and choose which one to use right where you have this logic >split in your code. Yes, this is exactly the model we make heavy use of in TripleO, it works pretty well. Note there's now an OS::Heat::None resource in heat, which makes it easy to conditionally disable things (without the need for a noop.yaml template that contains matching parameters): http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Heat::None So you'd have two environment files like: cat enable_floating.yaml: resource_registry: OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: templates/the_floating_config.yaml cat disable_floating.yaml: resource_registry: OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: OS::Heat::None Again, this pattern is well proven and works pretty well. Conditionals may provide an alternative way to do this, but at the expense of some additional complexity inside the templates. >Option 2 is not so bad either IMO (AFAIK Trove was doing that at sometime, >not sure of current status), but the above would be nicer. Yes, in the past[1] I've commented that the composition model above may be preferable to jinja templating, but recently I've realized there are pros and cons to each approach. The heat composition model works pretty well when you want to combine multiple pieces (nested stacks) which contain some mixture of different resources, but it doesn't work so well when you want to iterate over a common pattern and build a template (e.g based on a loop). You can use ResourceGroups in some cases, but that adds to the stack depth (number of nested stacks), and may not be workable for upgrades, so TripleO is now looking at some limited use of jinja2 templating also, I agree it's not so bad provided the interfaces presented to the user are carefully constrained. Steve [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/211771/ __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template
I’m in broad agreement with Hongbin. Having tried a patch to use jinja2 in the templates, it certainly adds complexity. I am in favor of using conditionals and consuming the latest version of heat. If we intend to support older versions of OpenStack this should be a clearly defined goal and needs to be tested. An aspiration to work with older versions isn’t a good policy. I would like to understand a bit better the “chaos” option 3 would cause. Tom From: Hongbin Lu [mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com] Sent: 12 May 2016 16:35 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template We discussed the management of Heat templates several times. It seems the consensus is to leverage the *conditionals*feature from Heat (option #1). From the past discussion, it sounds like option #2 or #3 will significantly complicate our Heat templates, thus incurring burden on maintenance. However, I agree with Yuanying that option #1 will make Newton (or newer) version of Magnum incompatible with Mitaka (or older) version of OpenStack. A solution I can think of is to have a Jinja2 version of Heat template in the contrib folder, so that operators can swap the Heat templates if they want to run newer version of Magnum with older version of OpenStack. Thoughts. Best regards, Hongbin From: Yuanying OTSUKA [mailto:yuany...@oeilvert.org] Sent: May-12-16 6:02 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template Hi, Thanks for your helpful comment. I didn’t know about the pattern you suggested. We often want to “if” or “for” etc… For example, * if private network is supplied as parameter, disable creating network resource. * if https parameter is enable, tcp 6443 port should be opened instead of 8080 at“OS::Neutron::SecurityGroup". * if https parameter is enable, loadbalancing protocol should be TCP instead of HTTP and so on. So, I want to Jinja2 template to manage it. I’ll try to use the composition model above, and also test the limited use of jinja2 templating. Thanks - OTSUKA, Yuanying 2016年5月12日(木) 17:46 Steven Hardy mailto:sha...@redhat.com>>: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:08:02AM +0300, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: >Hi, > >not sure why 3 will bring chaos when implemented properly. I agree - heat is designed with composition in mind, and e.g in TripleO we're making heavy use of it for optional configurations and it works pretty well: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/composition.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw0JhywwA1E http://hardysteven.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/tripleo-heat-templates-part-1-roles-and.html https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/tree/master/environments >Can you abstract the "thing" (sorry, not quite familiar with Magnum) that >needs FP + FP itself into a custom resource/nested stack? Then you could >use single master template plus two environments (one with FP, one >without), and choose which one to use right where you have this logic >split in your code. Yes, this is exactly the model we make heavy use of in TripleO, it works pretty well. Note there's now an OS::Heat::None resource in heat, which makes it easy to conditionally disable things (without the need for a noop.yaml template that contains matching parameters): http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Heat::None So you'd have two environment files like: cat enable_floating.yaml: resource_registry: OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: templates/the_floating_config.yaml cat disable_floating.yaml: resource_registry: OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: OS::Heat::None Again, this pattern is well proven and works pretty well. Conditionals may provide an alternative way to do this, but at the expense of some additional complexity inside the templates. >Option 2 is not so bad either IMO (AFAIK Trove was doing that at sometime, >not sure of current status), but the above would be nicer. Yes, in the past[1] I've commented that the composition model above may be preferable to jinja templating, but recently I've realized there are pros and cons to each approach. The heat composition model works pretty well when you want to combine multiple pieces (nested stacks) which contain some mixture of different resources, but it doesn't work so well when you want to iterate over a common pattern and build a template (e.g based on a loop). You can use ResourceGroups in some cases, but that adds to the stack depth (number of nested stacks), and may not be workable for upgrades, so TripleO is now looking at some limited use of jinja2 templating also, I agree it's not so bad provided the interfaces presented to the user are carefully constrained. Steve [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/211771/ __
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template
Hi, My concern is that using option 1 is acceptable or not (because it’s not implemented yet.) So, first step, I’ll implement bp:bay-with-no-floating-ips <https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/bay-with-no-floating-ips> using option 1, and option2 or 3 will be implemented later if supporting older versions are needed. right? (Sorry, I remember Tom was working for supporing jinja2, but I didn’t know current status about it. Thanks - OTSUKA, Yuanying 2016年5月13日(金) 3:34 Cammann, Tom : > I’m in broad agreement with Hongbin. Having tried a patch to use jinja2 in > the templates, it certainly adds complexity. I am in favor of using > conditionals and consuming the latest version of heat. If we intend to > support older versions of OpenStack this should be a clearly defined goal > and needs to be tested. An aspiration to work with older versions isn’t a > good policy. > > > > I would like to understand a bit better the “chaos” option 3 would cause. > > > > Tom > > > > *From:* Hongbin Lu [mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com] > *Sent:* 12 May 2016 16:35 > > > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template > > > > We discussed the management of Heat templates several times. It seems the > consensus is to leverage the *conditionals*feature from Heat (option #1). > From the past discussion, it sounds like option #2 or #3 will significantly > complicate our Heat templates, thus incurring burden on maintenance. > > > > However, I agree with Yuanying that option #1 will make Newton (or newer) > version of Magnum incompatible with Mitaka (or older) version of OpenStack. > A solution I can think of is to have a Jinja2 version of Heat template in > the contrib folder, so that operators can swap the Heat templates if they > want to run newer version of Magnum with older version of OpenStack. > Thoughts. > > > > Best regards, > > Hongbin > > > > *From:* Yuanying OTSUKA [mailto:yuany...@oeilvert.org > ] > *Sent:* May-12-16 6:02 AM > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template > > > > Hi, > > Thanks for your helpful comment. > > > > I didn’t know about the pattern you suggested. > > We often want to “if” or “for” etc… > > > > For example, > > * if private network is supplied as parameter, disable creating network > resource. > > * if https parameter is enable, tcp 6443 port should be opened instead of > 8080 at“OS::Neutron::SecurityGroup". > > * if https parameter is enable, loadbalancing protocol should be TCP > instead of HTTP > > > > and so on. > > So, I want to Jinja2 template to manage it. > > > > I’ll try to use the composition model above, > > and also test the limited use of jinja2 templating. > > > > > > Thanks > > - OTSUKA, Yuanying > > > > > > > > 2016年5月12日(木) 17:46 Steven Hardy : > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:08:02AM +0300, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: > >Hi, > > > >not sure why 3 will bring chaos when implemented properly. > > I agree - heat is designed with composition in mind, and e.g in TripleO > we're making heavy use of it for optional configurations and it works > pretty well: > > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/composition.html > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw0JhywwA1E > > > http://hardysteven.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/tripleo-heat-templates-part-1-roles-and.html > > > https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/tree/master/environments > > >Can you abstract the "thing" (sorry, not quite familiar with Magnum) > that > >needs FP + FP itself into a custom resource/nested stack? Then you > could > >use single master template plus two environments (one with FP, one > >without), and choose which one to use right where you have this logic > >split in your code. > > Yes, this is exactly the model we make heavy use of in TripleO, it works > pretty well. > > Note there's now an OS::Heat::None resource in heat, which makes it easy to > conditionally disable things (without the need for a noop.yaml template > that contains matching parameters): > > > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Heat::None > > So you'd have two environment files like: > > cat enable_floating.yaml: > resource_registry: > OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: templates/the_floating_config.yaml > > cat disable_floating.yaml: > resource_registry: > OS::Magnum::Floa
Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template
Sounds good to me. Best regards, Hongbin From: Yuanying OTSUKA [mailto:yuany...@oeilvert.org] Sent: May-12-16 9:12 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template Hi, My concern is that using option 1 is acceptable or not (because it’s not implemented yet.) So, first step, I’ll implement bp:bay-with-no-floating-ips<https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/bay-with-no-floating-ips> using option 1, and option2 or 3 will be implemented later if supporting older versions are needed. right? (Sorry, I remember Tom was working for supporing jinja2, but I didn’t know current status about it. Thanks - OTSUKA, Yuanying 2016年5月13日(金) 3:34 Cammann, Tom mailto:tom.camm...@hpe.com>>: I’m in broad agreement with Hongbin. Having tried a patch to use jinja2 in the templates, it certainly adds complexity. I am in favor of using conditionals and consuming the latest version of heat. If we intend to support older versions of OpenStack this should be a clearly defined goal and needs to be tested. An aspiration to work with older versions isn’t a good policy. I would like to understand a bit better the “chaos” option 3 would cause. Tom From: Hongbin Lu [mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com<mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com>] Sent: 12 May 2016 16:35 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template We discussed the management of Heat templates several times. It seems the consensus is to leverage the *conditionals*feature from Heat (option #1). From the past discussion, it sounds like option #2 or #3 will significantly complicate our Heat templates, thus incurring burden on maintenance. However, I agree with Yuanying that option #1 will make Newton (or newer) version of Magnum incompatible with Mitaka (or older) version of OpenStack. A solution I can think of is to have a Jinja2 version of Heat template in the contrib folder, so that operators can swap the Heat templates if they want to run newer version of Magnum with older version of OpenStack. Thoughts. Best regards, Hongbin From: Yuanying OTSUKA [mailto:yuany...@oeilvert.org] Sent: May-12-16 6:02 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Jinja2 for Heat template Hi, Thanks for your helpful comment. I didn’t know about the pattern you suggested. We often want to “if” or “for” etc… For example, * if private network is supplied as parameter, disable creating network resource. * if https parameter is enable, tcp 6443 port should be opened instead of 8080 at“OS::Neutron::SecurityGroup". * if https parameter is enable, loadbalancing protocol should be TCP instead of HTTP and so on. So, I want to Jinja2 template to manage it. I’ll try to use the composition model above, and also test the limited use of jinja2 templating. Thanks - OTSUKA, Yuanying 2016年5月12日(木) 17:46 Steven Hardy mailto:sha...@redhat.com>>: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:08:02AM +0300, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: >Hi, > >not sure why 3 will bring chaos when implemented properly. I agree - heat is designed with composition in mind, and e.g in TripleO we're making heavy use of it for optional configurations and it works pretty well: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/composition.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw0JhywwA1E http://hardysteven.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/tripleo-heat-templates-part-1-roles-and.html https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/tree/master/environments >Can you abstract the "thing" (sorry, not quite familiar with Magnum) that >needs FP + FP itself into a custom resource/nested stack? Then you could >use single master template plus two environments (one with FP, one >without), and choose which one to use right where you have this logic >split in your code. Yes, this is exactly the model we make heavy use of in TripleO, it works pretty well. Note there's now an OS::Heat::None resource in heat, which makes it easy to conditionally disable things (without the need for a noop.yaml template that contains matching parameters): http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html#OS::Heat::None So you'd have two environment files like: cat enable_floating.yaml: resource_registry: OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: templates/the_floating_config.yaml cat disable_floating.yaml: resource_registry: OS::Magnum::FloatingIP: OS::Heat::None Again, this pattern is well proven and works pretty well. Conditionals may provide an alternative way to do this, but at the expense of some additional complexity inside the templates. >Option 2 is not so bad either IMO (AFAIK Trove was doing that at sometime, >not sure of current status), but the above would be nicer. Yes, in the past[1] I
