Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On 2014-12-16 12:07 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: So I think this is something we really should get agreement on across the open stack API first before flipping back and forth on a case by case basis. Personally I think we should be using uuids for uniqueness and leave any extra restrictions to a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

So I think this is something we really should get agreement on across the open stack API first before flipping back and forth on a case by case basis. Personally I think we should be using uuids for uniqueness and leave any extra restrictions to a ui layer if really required. If we try to have nam

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On Dec 15, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Assaf Muller wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> I was (rightfully) asked to share my comments on the matter that I >> left in gerrit here. See below. >> >> On 12/12/14 22:40, Sean Dague wrote: >>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

I think the point made is that the behaviour is currently inconsistent and not user friendly. Regardless of that, I would like to point that technically this kind of change is backward incompatible and so it should not be simply approved by popular acclamation. I will seek input from the API WG in

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On Dec 12, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote: >> >> On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague wrote: >> >>> On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

- Original Message - > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > I was (rightfully) asked to share my comments on the matter that I > left in gerrit here. See below. > > On 12/12/14 22:40, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote: > >> > >> On Dec 11,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I was (rightfully) asked to share my comments on the matter that I left in gerrit here. See below. On 12/12/14 22:40, Sean Dague wrote: > On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote: >> >> On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague wrote: >> >>> On 12/

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

Looking at all comments it seems that existing change is reasonable. I will update it with link to this thread. Thanks! Regards, Ann Kamyshnikova On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Rochelle Grober wrote: > > > > > Morgan Fainberg [mailto:morgan.fainb...@gmail.com] *on* Friday, December > 12, 201

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

Morgan Fainberg [mailto:morgan.fainb...@gmail.com] on Friday, December 12, 2014 2:01 PM wrote: On Friday, December 12, 2014, Sean Dague mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague > wrote: > >> On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On 12/12/2014 05:00 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: On Friday, December 12, 2014, Sean Dague mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague > wrote: > >> On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> On

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On Friday, December 12, 2014, Sean Dague wrote: > On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote: > > > > On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague > > wrote: > > > >> On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > >>> On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On 2014-12-12 4:40 PM, Sean Dague wrote: While there is a good case for the UX of unique names - it also makes orchestration via tools like puppet a heck of a lot simpler - the fact is that most OpenStack resources do not require unique names. That being the case, why would we want security

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > >> On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wr

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

If we allow resource IDs to be set they will no longer be globally unique. I'm not sure if this will impact anything directly right now, but it might be something that impacts tools orchestrating multiple neutron deployments (e.g. cascading, cells, etc). On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Ivar Lazz

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

In general, I agree with Jay about the opaqueness of the names. I see however good reasons for having user-defined unique attributes (see Clint's point about idempotency). A middle ground here could be granting to the users the ability to specify the resource ID. A similar proposal was made some t

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >> On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: >>> On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Henry

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

Thanks everyone for sharing yours opinion! I will create a separate change with another option that was suggested. Yes, I'm currently working on this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1194579. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 12/12/14 00:05, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > We recently had an issue in production where a user had 2 > "default" security groups (for reasons we have yet to identify). This is probably the result of the race condition that is discussed in the thread:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 23:05:01, Mathieu Gagné wrote: > When no security group is provided, Nova will default to the "default" > security group. However due to the fact 2 security groups had the same > name, nova-compute got confused, put the instance in ERROR state and > logged this traceback [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

e who should be informed (rockyg). Thanks for considering the enduser(s) impact of non-unique names. --Rocky -Original Message- From: Mathieu Gagné [mailto:mga...@iweb.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:05 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-12-11 05:43:46 -0800: > On 12/11/2014 07:22 AM, Anna Kamyshnikova wrote: > > Hello everyone! > > > > In neutron there is a rather old bug [1] about adding uniqueness for > > security group name and tenant id. I found this idea reasonable and > > started wor

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On 2014-12-11 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: I'm generally in favor of making name attributes opaque, utf-8 strings that are entirely user-defined and have no constraints on them. I consider the name to be just a tag that the user places on some resource. It is the resource's ID that is unique. I do

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: >> On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Henry Gessau wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Mark McCl

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Henry Gessau wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Mark McClain wrote: On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes mailto:jay

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: >> >> On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Henry Gessau wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Mark McClain wrote: > On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes > wrote

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Henry Gessau wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Mark McClain wrote: On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm generally in favor of making name attributes opaque, utf-8 strings th

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Henry Gessau wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Mark McClain wrote: >> >>> On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes >> > wrote: >>> >>> I'm generally in favor of making name attributes opaque, utf-8 strings that >>> are entirely user-defined a

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Mark McClain wrote: > >> On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes > > wrote: >> >> I'm generally in favor of making name attributes opaque, utf-8 strings that >> are entirely user-defined and have no constraints on them. I consider the >> name to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

> On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > I'm generally in favor of making name attributes opaque, utf-8 strings that > are entirely user-defined and have no constraints on them. I consider the > name to be just a tag that the user places on some resource. It is the > resource's ID

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

On 12/11/2014 07:22 AM, Anna Kamyshnikova wrote: Hello everyone! In neutron there is a rather old bug [1] about adding uniqueness for security group name and tenant id. I found this idea reasonable and started working on fix for this bug [2]. I think it is good to add a uniqueconstraint because:

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] UniqueConstraint for name and tenant_id in security group

Hello everyone! In neutron there is a rather old bug [1] about adding uniqueness for security group name and tenant id. I found this idea reasonable and started working on fix for this bug [2]. I think it is good to add a uniqueconstraint because: 1) In nova there is such constraint for security