[Starlingx-discuss] API requests: stx-config
Jones, Bruce E
bruce.e.jones at intel.com
Fri Dec 7 21:40:02 UTC 2018
I’m just trying to understand which sub-project is responsible for updating the API documents – the Docs sub-project or the sub-project that owns the APIs?
I would hope the answer would be the later, as the sub-project that owns the service are the subject matter experts on the APIs.
I’ve been assuming that the Docs team owns the infrastructure and the other teams own the documentation for their software. But the line is fuzzy and AFAIK we’ve never clarified it as a community. Now would be a good time.
brucej
From: Kung, John [mailto:John.Kung at windriver.com]
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 10:29 AM
To: Jones, Bruce E <bruce.e.jones at intel.com>; Arce Moreno, Abraham <abraham.arce.moreno at intel.com>
Cc: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
Subject: RE: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] API requests: stx-config
I was looking for a better method to provide feedback on Abraham’s objective to align REST API documentation with the REST APIs.
We could start with email, however, I feel the details and feedback from the cores could be better represented in another tool.
John
From: Jones, Bruce E [mailto:bruce.e.jones at intel.com]
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 11:49 AM
To: Kung, John; Arce Moreno, Abraham
Cc: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
Subject: RE: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] API requests: stx-config
John, isn’t that backwards? Shouldn’t the dev team take the feedback from Abraham and the Docs team and implement the changes needed to fix the document?
brucej
From: Kung, John [mailto:John.Kung at windriver.com]
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 7:51 AM
To: Arce Moreno, Abraham <abraham.arce.moreno at intel.com<mailto:abraham.arce.moreno at intel.com>>
Cc: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] API requests: stx-config
Abraham,
Please find enclosed my feedback preceded by [JK]
Given the level of detail and input required, could you please open a Gerrit review in order to get feedback and comments?
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Arce Moreno, Abraham [mailto:abraham.arce.moreno at intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 11:48 AM
To: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
Subject: [Starlingx-discuss] API requests: stx-config
stx-config team,
Based in some time spent now within stx-config and with the objective to align our REST API Documentation with our REST APIs, we are kindly requesting your comments for questions "?" under each section [ Section ] [Sub Section]
Please assume:
- The require X-Auth-Token is in place to authenticate, only URLs might be shown.
- StarlingX is configured as Standard Controller: 2 Controllers, 2 Computes.
[ Project Information ]
The mismatch between documentation [0] and information via API Query is addressed under [3] and [4].
? Heads Up! The description includes the word "interfaces" however as you will find
below, "interfaces is also listed in the documentation but not intuitively found as
a REST method under the API query output. More information below.
[ v1/ ]
Here we are showing 3 different views of what we are seeing within stx-config
project:
- Our initial "Migration WADL to RST", see history here [1]
- What we have documented in our "Current Official API Documentation" pages [0]
- What the "API Query Output" is actually showing with
curl -i http://10.10.10.2:6385/v1/...
[ v1/ ] [ Migration WADL to RST ]
Migration analysis from WADL to RST format gave us the REST METHODs below to include, we are adding in the second column what it seems to be the match for the valid API REST methods:
System > isystems
Clusters > clusters
Interfaces > ? [JK] v1/iinterfaces
Partitions > ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/partitions || /v1/partitions/{partition_id}
Volume Groups > ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/ilvgs || /v1/ilvgs/{volumegroup_id}
Physical Volumes > ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/ipvs || /v1/ipvs/{physicalvolume_id}
Ceph Storage Functions > ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/istors || /v1/istors/{stor_id}
Profiles > iprofile
DNS > idns
NTP > intp
External OAM > iextoam
Infrastructure Subnet > iinfra
DRBD Configuration > drbdconfig
SNMP Communities > icommunity
SNMP Trap Destinations > itrapdest
Devices > ! /v1/devices/{device_id} || /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/pci_devices [JK] This should be v1/pci_devices/{pci_device_id} || /v1/ihosts/{ihost_id}/pci_devices
Service Parameter > service_parameter
SDN Controllers > sdn_controller
Remote Logging > remotelogging
Networks > networks
Address Pools > addrpools
Addresses > addresses
Routes > ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/routes
Storage Backends > storage_backend
Storage Tiers > ! storage_tiers
Controller Filesystem > controller_fs
Ceph Monitors > ceph_mon
System Certificate Configuration > ! certificate
Custom Firewall Rules > firewallrules
? Are all the names and API REST methods correctly matched?
[JK] Added /v1/iinterfaces above for Interfaces.
No, devices should be pci_devices
[JK] missing ethernet_ports
? Are all the valid API REST method names correct?
[JK] See my comment above
? "Interfaces" is listed under v1/ API Version output [2]
as an expected service but a REST METHOD match was not found, are we talking
about "Interface" one of the following ones:
[JK] This is referring to v1/iinterfaces
1) Is it the "interface_networks" REST method?
Interface_networks is a separate REST method and allows association of a networks to an iinterfaces
2) Or found under "Profiles" as described under its description:
"...This includes interface profiles..."
3) Or found under "SDN Controllers" as described under its description:
"...SDN manager interface..."
4) Or as simple as "Networks" interfaces?
[ v1/ ] [ Current Official API Documentation ]
The following API REST methods documented under [0] give valid API output:
- System
- Clusters
- DNS
- NTP
- External OAM
- Infrastructure Subnet
- DRBD Configuration
- SNMP Communities
- SNMP Trap Destinations
- Service Parameter
- SDN Controllers
- Remote Logging
- Networks
- Address Pools
- Storage Backends
- Storage Tiers
- Controller Filesystem
- Ceph Monitors
- System Certificate Configuration
- Custom Firewall Rules
- Partitions
- Volume Groups
- Physical Volumes
- Ceph Storage Functions
- Devices
- Addresses
- Routes
The following API REST method documented under [0] has an invalid name:
- Profiles Documentation pointing to: /v1/iprofiles
and a valid v1/ endpoint: http://10.10.10.2:6385/v1/iprofile
? Is this a valid Documentation change from "iprofiles" to "iprofile"?
[JKUNG] Yes, this should be updated to 'iprofile' from 'iprofiles'
[ v1/ ] [ API Query Output ]
Based in our "[Starlingx-discuss] API requests: stx-ha" [3] we learned the following API REST methods from "System Inventory API v1" are assigned to stx-ha:
- services
- servicenodes
- service_groups [JK] this is servicegroup, not service_groups
And in our "[Starlingx-discuss] API requests: stx-metal" [4] the following are assigned to stx-metal. [JK] This is part of a pending user story 2002950.
- lldp_neighbours
- ihosts
- icpu
- lldp_agents
And now these API REST methods are assigned to stx-config:
- isystems
- clusters
- <Interfaces>
- ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/partitions || /v1/partitions/{partition_id}
- ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/ilvgs || /v1/ilvgs/{volumegroup_id}
- ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/ipvs || /v1/ipvs/{physicalvolume_id}
- ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/istors || /v1/istors/{stor_id}
- iprofile
- idns
- intp
- iextoam
- iinfra
- drbdconfig
- icommunity
- itrapdest
- ! /v1/devices/{device_id} || /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/pci_devices
- service_parameter
- sdn_controller
- remotelogging
- networks
- addrpools
- addresses
- ! /v1/ihosts/{host_id}/routes
- storage_backend
- ! storage_tiers
- controller_fs
- ceph_mon
- ! certificate
- firewallrules
Leaving the following assigned to other StarlingX components, more to come once we review the remaining StarlingX projects:
- links
[JKUNG] These are still currently in stx-config, except, I believe license, upgrade does not apply to StarlingX. Needs confirmation from storage which ones will continue to be supported (i.e. storage_ceph_external).
- storage_file
- storage_lvm
- interface_networks
- id
- ptp
- media_types
- upgrade
- imemory
- storage_ceph_external
- health
- license
- storage_ceph
- storage_external
- iuser
- helm_charts
- inode
? Do we need another level of review?
YES, needs update and re-review.
? Should we target an update to the documentation in terms of number
of services we are documenting comparing the 3 perspectives?
? Is there anything we need to take care of?
Thanks for your initial support.
[0] https://docs.starlingx.io/api-ref/stx-config/index.html
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StarlingX/Developer_Guide/API_Documentation#Analysis
[2] https://docs.starlingx.io/api-ref/stx-config/api-ref-sysinv-v1-config.html?expanded=shows-details-for-configuration-api-v1-detail#api-versions
[3]http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/2018-November/001868.html
[4] http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/2018-November/002032.html
_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/attachments/20181207/dba6bb0e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Starlingx-discuss
mailing list