Clustering policytype list

[dkt26111]

For #823

Links to the line numbers/files in the OpenStack source code that support the
code in this PR:

API doc:
https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/clustering/#list-policy-types

API code:
https://github.com/openstack/senlin/blob/master/senlin/api/openstack/v1/policy_types.py#L30

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 73.9% when pulling 12518a2 on dkt26111:clustering_policytype_list into 2daf304 on gophercloud:master.

[theopenlab-ci]

Build succeeded.

• gophercloud-unittest : SUCCESS in 2m 20s
• gophercloud-acceptance-test : SUCCESS in 28m 49s

[dkt26111]

@jtopjian: Requesting code review. I'm working with JackKuei on implementing the senlin APIs.

[jtopjian]

@dkt26111 Thanks for this!

Overall this is really good. There are a handful of small nits that I wouldn't consider blocking (just things to clean up in the next PR).

However, one thing I'm curious about is if this is applicable here:

https://github.com/openstack/senlin/blob/c0ef921768046a8795aa1f231ec6fafd5e67f3ea/senlin/engine/service.py#L510

If so, then it looks like this API call supports options for listing (limit, marker, sort, etc). Can you verify if this is true (I'm setting up a Senlin and Zaqar environment to help you folks out with validating these PRs but I'm running blind at the moment).

If list options are a thing, we'll want to add proper support for ListOpts. A simple example of how to implement that is here:

gophercloud/openstack/identity/v2/tenants/requests.go

Lines 8 to 30 in 7e3b870

	// ListOpts filters the Tenants that are returned by the List call.
	type ListOpts struct {
	// Marker is the ID of the last Tenant on the previous page.
	Marker string `q:"marker"`
	// Limit specifies the page size.
	Limit int `q:"limit"`
	}
	// List enumerates the Tenants to which the current token has access.
	func List(client *gophercloud.ServiceClient, opts *ListOpts) pagination.Pager {
	url := listURL(client)
	if opts != nil {
	q, err := gophercloud.BuildQueryString(opts)
	if err != nil {
	return pagination.Pager{Err: err}
	}
	url += q.String()
	}
	return pagination.NewPager(client, url, func(r pagination.PageResult) pagination.Page {
	return TenantPage{pagination.LinkedPageBase{PageResult: r}}
	})
	}

gophercloud/openstack/identity/v2/tenants/results.go

Lines 23 to 44 in 7e3b870

	// TenantPage is a single page of Tenant results.
	type TenantPage struct {
	pagination.LinkedPageBase
	}
	// IsEmpty determines whether or not a page of Tenants contains any results.
	func (r TenantPage) IsEmpty() (bool, error) {
	tenants, err := ExtractTenants(r)
	return len(tenants) == 0, err
	}
	// NextPageURL extracts the "next" link from the tenants_links section of the result.
	func (r TenantPage) NextPageURL() (string, error) {
	var s struct {
	Links []gophercloud.Link `json:"tenants_links"`
	}
	err := r.ExtractInto(&s)
	if err != nil {
	return "", err
	}
	return gophercloud.ExtractNextURL(s.Links)
	}

[jtopjian]

SupportStatusType?

[dkt26111]

Yes, you are correct. I will fix this.

[jtopjian]

nit: these could be constants:

const (
  apiVersion = "v1"
  apiName = "policy-types"
)

[dkt26111]

Agree. I'll fix it.

[jtopjian]

nit: omitempty isn't really needed here - it's only useful in requests.

[dkt26111]

I'll fix that too.

[jtopjian]

@dkt26111 whoops - actually, my mistake. I was looking at policy list and not policy type list :)

[jtopjian]

@dkt26111 Sorry about getting those two APIs mixed up. This looks good to me. Let me know if you want to clean up the nits now or later. If the latter, I can merge this now.

#824 will need to be rebased if this is merged (or vice-versa depending on if #824 is merged first)

[dkt26111]

If everything looks good to you in the latest commits, you can go ahead and merge it. I will work with Jackkuei to rebase #824 .

[theopenlab-ci]

Build succeeded.

• gophercloud-unittest : SUCCESS in 2m 33s
• gophercloud-acceptance-test : SUCCESS in 29m 00s

[jtopjian]

@dkt26111 All looks good! Really nice work on this.

A note on microversions: we haven't figured out a good way of handling them in Gophercloud yet. Basic microversion stuff like what you're testing here is totally fine.

However if there will be times when, for example, a version 1.5 request or response body is different than a 1.0 request/body (meaning the struct fields are different and/or incompatible), this is the area we're still looking into. We can discuss different options if we get into that situation with Senlin.