search

att-comdev / openstack-helm

PROJECT HAS MOVED TO OPENSTACK
https://github.com/openstack/openstack-helm
69 stars 41 forks source link

Add support for Cinder fake backend #270

Closed wilkers-steve closed 7 years ago

wilkers-steve commented 7 years ago

Use Cinder fake backend over Ceph for developer mode. This allows developers to create volumes and get logging information for testing purposes

What is the purpose of this pull request?: Enable developers to use the Fake cinder backend driver for development purposes. This eliminates reliance on Ceph for development

What issue does this pull request address?: Partially addresses #258

Notes for reviewers to consider:

Specific reviewers for pull request: @alanmeadows @v1k0d3n @intlabs

v1k0d3n commented 7 years ago

@wilkers-steve what's your plans with this? i think we need to still have the fake backend; it's just not something we're using as expected. is this a correct assumption? this way developers could use openstack-helm for development of backends, etc...like you brought up the other day.

if this work is scoped small, then we can open up a separate PR for LVM. i think this is how you were going to manage these; is that a correct assumption? if that is the case, let me know when you're ready to have this reviewed and I'll look it over again.

wilkers-steve commented 7 years ago

After fiddling with the fake backend, I'm curious if it is necessary. From what I've seen, it's used primarily for unit testing. If a cinder developer wanted to develop a new backend, they'd do their cinder development then enable their new backend driver to test whether it works. As far as I can tell, the fake backend wouldn't be necessary here

wilkers-steve commented 7 years ago

The more important part for developing new backends here would be the docs you mentioned above and how to handle enabling multiple or different backends. Forgot to add that part 🙂

v1k0d3n commented 7 years ago

well, if you want...we can close this out in favor of the LVM piece. your call on how you want to split out or drop the work.

wilkers-steve commented 7 years ago

I'd be okay with dropping this PR in favor of LVM. It'll give us more functionality and shouldn't be an insurmountable amount of work

v1k0d3n commented 7 years ago

i'm ok with closing this in favor of switching to LVM. the main goal is to increase the capabilities of development mode, so if LVM opens that door...I'm all for it.

v1k0d3n commented 7 years ago

just submit an issue/PR for LVM, and document how it can be used to improve development mode.