Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Switch from ovn-nbctl, ovn-sbctl, and ovs-vsctl to using ovsdbapp #136
Switch from ovn-nbctl, ovn-sbctl, and ovs-vsctl to using ovsdbapp #136
Changes from all commits
65d9ece
ac7c7e2
ca5ee1e
c1c8996
f830f74
6134fd6
7c37a7a
f4a4ac6
82a5cb4
476efcd
097aa1e
d4ace38
9d04740
5aa3e71
908aac1
3310aac
0805ecb
14bcd83
a2da1a2
a1af949
887477b
1dc44c1
fd5429f
98d1422
0653426
6cfcf1a
d54b2b2
c9bddc4
1d157dc
1985b31
78fa2fc
f64c623
2e19451
b878247
67d6407
b0d9ade
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit: now we hardcode
192.16.0.0/16
in two places: here and in ovn_tester.py. Do you think there's an easy way to just define this default in a single place?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking about this, and there are a few ways that could work.
do.sh
andovn-tester
.ovn-fake-multinode-tools/get-config-value.py
and put it inovn-tester
and define defaults in that module. Thendo.sh
andovn-tester
could both call into this module to get configuration values.ovn_tester.py
that can be filled in bydo.sh
at install-time.Of these, I think 1 is clearly the worst. 2 is simple but also a bit clumsy. For me, it's a toss-up whether 3 or 4 is better. I think I would lean more towards option 3 myself. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure if that is what you meant in 4, but one thing I had in mind previously was:
This will ensure that we do not have defaults defined in multiple places. Will also be easier to track down undefined/misconfigured values if ovn-tester will just fail and not proceed using unexpected config values.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds interesting! It also sounds like something we can do as a follow up in my opinion. Shall we open an issue to track this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@igsilya Sorry for the ambiguity on number 4. What I meant was that
ovn_tester.py
would have something like this in it:We might also rename it to
ovn_tester.py.in
to make it clear that it can't be run as-is. Then, when runningdo.sh install
, thedo.sh
code will populate{{ default_node_net }}
with the proper default. This way, the default only is defined indo.sh
.It's not my favorite suggestion, but it's something I thought of.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@putnopvut Hmm, I'm not sure I like the idea of an
ovn_tester.py.in
. I think I'd prefer @igsilya's suggestion of do.sh filling in all required input values in the yml we finally pass to ovn-tester.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, that's why from the 4 suggestions I came up with, 3 was the one I preferred most. Mine and @igsilya's are more-or-less the same, except that in his,
do.sh
controls the defaults, and in mine,ovn-tester
controls the defaults.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, your option "3" is also fine, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've actually implemented @igsilya's idea at https://github.com/putnopvut/ovn-heater/tree/default_dumper . I was hoping to be able to open a PR here, but github does not allow using a PR as the basis for another PR. Therefore, when I created the PR, it was way larger and more confusing than necessary. I'll hold off and post that PR once this one is merged.