Hi, Alex, Thanks for the information, I was unable to join the conference yesterday. Then lets get the dicision done before fix it.
BR, Zheng On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Alex Xu <hejie...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi, Zhengyu, > > We discussed this in yesterday Nova API meeting. We think it should get > consistent in API-WG. > > And there already have patch for pagination guideline > https://review.openstack.org/190743 , and there also have some discussion > on limits. > So we are better waiting the guideline get consistent before fix it. > > Thanks > Alex > > On Sep 23, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Zhenyu Zheng <zhengzhenyul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Any thoughts on this? > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zhenyu Zheng <zhengzhenyul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, Thanks for your reply, after check again and I agree with you. I >> think we should come up with a conclusion about how we should treat this >> limit=0 across nova. And that's also why I sent out this mail. I will >> register this topic in the API meeting open discussion section, my be a BP >> in M to fix this. >> >> BR, >> >> Zheng >> >> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell < >> kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 15:41 +0800, Zhenyu Zheng wrote: >>> > Hi, I found out that nova currently handles list with limit=0 quite >>> > different for different objects. >>> > >>> > Especially when list servers: >>> > >>> > According to the code: >>> > >>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/api/openstack/common.py#n206 >>> > >>> > when limit = 0, it should apply as max_limit, but currently, in: >>> > >>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/db/sqlalchemy/api.py#n1930 >>> > >>> > we directly return [], this is quite different with comment in the api >>> > code. >>> > >>> > >>> > I checked other objects: >>> > >>> > when list security groups and server groups, it will return as no >>> > limit has been set. And for flavors it returns []. I will continue to >>> > try out other APIs if needed. >>> > >>> > I think maybe we should make a rule for all objects, at least fix the >>> > servers to make it same in api and db code. >>> > >>> > I have reported a bug in launchpad: >>> > >>> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1494617 >>> > >>> > >>> > Any suggestions? >>> >>> After seeing the test failures that showed up on your proposed fix, I'm >>> thinking that the proposed change reads like an API change, requiring a >>> microversion bump. That said, I approve of increased consistency across >>> the API, and perhaps the behavior on limit=0 is something the API group >>> needs to discuss a guideline for? >>> -- >>> Kevin L. Mitchell <kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com> >>> Rackspace >>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
