Marcus, I didn't do the db thing for 4.3 but it is idem-potent and can go in a Upgrade430to431.java as well. This one doesn't exist yet.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > That wasn't the patch I thought it was. Regarding > 5e80e5d33d9a295b91cdba9377f52d9d963d802a, we should probably do that for > IpAssocCommand as well. I'm not sure we have the db fix in 4.3 yet, and so a > fix like this would be required for IpAssocCommand (and perhaps other > unfound things). > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hmm.. ok. I guess we can apply the bandaid patch as well >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>> I checked in a commit: 5e80e5d33d9a295b91cdba9377f52d9d963d802a, which >>> will fix some of the mess of vlan id. >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Marcus [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 9:57 AM >>> > To: Daan Hoogland >>> > Cc: dev >>> > Subject: Re: VPC's VR missing public NIC eth1 >>> > >>> > Ok, thanks. It seems there are other cases where the Command being >>> > passed from the mgmt server has inconsistent broadcastUri as well, this >>> > should blanket fix them. In the meantime there's a growing group of 4.3 >>> > upgraders who are getting pitchforks out over at CLOUDSTACK-6464, so we >>> > may want to have something in 4.3.1 too. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Daan Hoogland >>> > <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > one clarification, I was not suggesting changing vlan://x back to x, >>> > > just the case where x==untagged. I had a little analog discussion >>> > > with >>> > > Hugo and he convinced me that untagged has no special meaning in SDN >>> > > cases, maybe for vxlan. So the problem I saw is at least smaller then >>> > > in my mind. >>> > > >>> > > I have committed the db change to update 4.3.0 to 4.4.0. It will need >>> > > heavy testing. And I didn't extensively look into other tables that >>> > > need such a change. networks is the likely candidate but there may be >>> > > others. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > > Just to recap... I was trying to review the issue in my head and >>> > > > thought >>> > > it >>> > > > might be useful to write it down. >>> > > > >>> > > > in 4.3 we got the BroadcastDomainType enum introduced, and many >>> > > > parts of >>> > > the >>> > > > code were changed to use that when dealing with the vlan id. This >>> > > > code, among other things, returns a vlan id in URI format, >>> > > > describing both the technology used to provide the virtual lan, >>> > > > along with the id. Along the >>> > > way >>> > > > this seems to have caused the value itself to be stored as a URI >>> > > > (still >>> > > not >>> > > > sure where, by whom, or if it was intentional). That was fine and >>> > > > seemed >>> > > to >>> > > > work after some fixing, until there was an upgrade done where the >>> > > existing >>> > > > database value was NOT in URI format. We had a few places where the >>> > > > code >>> > > was >>> > > > never changed to use BroadcastDomainType to 'normalize' the info >>> > > > from the database (e.g. the IpAssocVpcCommand the mgmt server >>> > > > constructs), so upgrades are broken. >>> > > > >>> > > > Most places in the code as it is now are working with a live value >>> > > > of 'vlan://x', regardless of whether the database has 'vlan://x' or >>> > > > just >>> > > 'x', >>> > > > thanks to this code it returns the same 'vlan://' for either stored >>> > > value. >>> > > > For these places it shouldn't matter if we fix the old databases to >>> > > > store 'vlan://x' or the 4.3 installs to go back to 'x'. >>> > > > >>> > > > However, there are a few places that are broken, like this >>> > > IpAssocVpcCommand >>> > > > the mgmt server creates and CLOUDSTACK-5505. If we switch the db >>> > > > value >>> > > back, >>> > > > we have to identify all of the outstanding ones and fix them. In >>> > > addition, >>> > > > new code since then may have perhaps assumed that the db value is >>> > > 'vlan://', >>> > > > and might have bothered to pass through the interpolation, so they >>> > > > may >>> > > break >>> > > > as well. If we had full coverage on the test suite it would be easy >>> > > > to change the value back in the DB of a 4.3 or 4.4 install and see >>> > > > what >>> > > breaks. >>> > > > >>> > > > If we don't switch the value back, and instead update old databases >>> > > > to >>> > > the >>> > > > current way, it fixes the immediate issue but we end up with code >>> > > > doing >>> > > the >>> > > > same thing in two different ways. Some places will be using the raw >>> > > > db >>> > > value >>> > > > and other places will be asking for it to be normalized, and both >>> > > > will >>> > > have >>> > > > the same result, which is kind of messy and prone to causing issues >>> > > > down >>> > > the >>> > > > road if something changes again to separate these two. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> I'm not sure the KVM code needs to be changed, you're asking it to >>> > > >> deal with an inconsistency from the mgmt server. Don't you find it >>> > > >> odd that >>> > > one >>> > > >> Command from the mgmt server provides >>> > > >> broadcastUri="vlan://untagged" and another provides >>> > > >> broadcastUri="untagged"? I'm not sure I understand why changing >>> > > >> 'untagged' into a URI format changes its meaning, but it seems >>> > > like >>> > > >> that doesn't make any sense to you, so perhaps we can break that >>> > > >> out >>> > > into a >>> > > >> separate column so that we can still capture the info, if needed. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> If we don't like URI format for the vlan id, that's fine, but we >>> > > >> need to do changes to the 4.3 installs and fix 4.4. As mentioned, >>> > > >> I >>> > > >> remember >>> > > there >>> > > >> being a decent amount of work to handle the "vlan://" when it was >>> > > >> introduced, and that will need to be done again to change it back. >>> > > >> I'm >>> > > not >>> > > >> against that, but I'm not going to be the one doing that work, >>> > > >> either >>> > > :-) >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Daan Hoogland >>> > > >> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>> > > >> wrote: >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> I don't think this should be solved this way afterall. 'untagged' >>> > > >>> actually means no vlan, so it should not be prepended with >>> > > >>> 'vlan://'. >>> > > >>> I think the kvm code should be fixed for this not the generic >>> > > >>> code. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Daan Hoogland < >>> > > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>> > > >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> >> Looks good to me, aside from he debug statement. >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > Ah, the first line was not in my line of sight. >>> > > >>> > -- >>> > > >>> > Daan >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> -- >>> > > >>> Daan >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Daan >>> > > >> >> > -- Daan
