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

Fix nova module cooperation with python-novaclient #49977



Copy link

@slivik slivik commented Oct 10, 2018

What does this PR do?

Fixes nova module and salt.utils.openstack.nova module:

  • fixed Keystone API v3 cooperation
  • added Keystone API version detection (based on HTTP status 301 - multiple choices)
  • removed novaclient max version restriction

Previous Behavior

It was not possible to use nova module when python-novaclient > 6.0.1 installed.

New Behavior

Now nova module works with newer version of python-novaclient.

Tests written?


Commits signed with GPG?


@ghost ghost self-requested a review Oct 10, 2018
Copy link

@gtmanfred gtmanfred left a comment

This looks great, thanks for the help here.

We have also moved everything over to the newer openstack shade module starting in 2018.3. but this would be good to backport to 2017.7

@gtmanfred gtmanfred added the bugfix-bckport label Oct 10, 2018
Copy link

@rallytime rallytime commented Oct 10, 2018

@slivik The pylint check found some errors. Can you fix those?

salt/utils/openstack/ Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@rallytime rallytime merged commit 97e859b into saltstack:develop Oct 11, 2018
6 of 11 checks passed
Copy link

@rallytime rallytime commented Oct 15, 2018

@slivik This won't back-port cleanly to the 2017.7 branch. Would you be willing to make this change there as well?

@rallytime rallytime removed the bugfix-bckport label Oct 15, 2018
Copy link
Contributor Author

@slivik slivik commented Oct 18, 2018

@rallytime I have created new PR adding openstack nova module and fixing possibility to back-port it cleanly to the 2017.7 branch.

@Akm0d Akm0d mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2019
@Akm0d Akm0d added the has master-port label Oct 18, 2019
@waynew waynew added this to PR needs port to master in PRs to port to master Oct 24, 2019
@garethgreenaway garethgreenaway moved this from PR needs port to master to PR has port to master in PRs to port to master Mar 24, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
has master-port
PRs to port to master
PR has port to master

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants