Skip to content
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

[LIBCLOUD-356] Add config_drive to support user_data #330

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

[LIBCLOUD-356] Add config_drive to support user_data #330

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

stickystyle
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@@ -1341,6 +1341,7 @@ def _create_args_to_params(self, node, **kwargs):
if 'ex_userdata' in kwargs:
server_params['user_data'] = base64.b64encode(
b(kwargs['ex_userdata'])).decode('ascii')
server_params['config_drive'] = True
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not actually sure if we want to always send config_drive attribute when user_data is provided.

I believe older versions and some installations of OpenStack support user_data without config_driver.

If that is in fact the case, we should also add ex_config_drive argument to the method (and this argument only makes sense if ex_userdata is provided as well).

/cc @briancurtin @alex

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems pretty reasonable, I've honestly not worked with many older versions of OpenStack. I'll amend the pull request based on your suggestions.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Alright, let me know when you update the pull request and I'll get those changes merged into trunk.

@stickystyle
Copy link
Contributor Author

Going on your suggestion and looking through the convention in other drivers @Kami, would it be the correct style to raise a ValueError if the user set ex_config_drive to True and failed to pass in ex_userdata ?

@Kami
Copy link
Member

Kami commented Jun 30, 2014

@stickystyle I think that's reasonable, although in cases like this, we usually leave validation like this to be performed by the server / API.

This way, we don't need to update the code if the business logic changes and passing one value without another becomes OK (which is unlikely in this case, but still).

@stickystyle
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Kami I've updated the pull request to have config_drive as a kwarg, and didn't include the ValueError exception as I agree with you that leaving it up to the API is probably a more maintainable solution from the client side.

Let me know if there are any other changes that need to be made, thanks!

@@ -1342,6 +1347,9 @@ def _create_args_to_params(self, node, **kwargs):
server_params['user_data'] = base64.b64encode(
b(kwargs['ex_userdata'])).decode('ascii')

if 'ex_config_drive' in kwargs:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably be better to do something like the code bellow because user could potentially pass in ex_config_drive=False to the method and we would still send True.

if 'ex_config_drive' in kwargs:
    server_params['config_drive'] = kwargs['ex_config_drive']

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 5e60407 May 17, 2015
@Kami
Copy link
Member

Kami commented May 17, 2015

Really sorry for the long delay (we don't get notifications when you push commits so I didn't notice that you updated the PR).

In any case, this change has finally been merged now. Thanks again.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants