- Devel - oVirt List Archives

vdsm_master_unit-tests_merged is failing
by Sandro Bonazzola 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

Hi, looks like http://jenkins.ovirt.org/job/vdsm_master_unit-tests_merged/ is failing due to non infra issues. Can you please take a look at http://jenkins.ovirt.org/job/vdsm_master_unit-tests_merged/872/console ? Thanks, -- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com

2 1

[ATN] Switch to Java 8 in master branch merged
by Juan Hernández 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

Hello, The change that switches the master branch to Java 8 has been merged: core: Use Java 8 as source and target https://gerrit.ovirt.org/46288 Make sure that you use Java 8 in your development and runtime environments. This change doesn't affect other branches, only master. Regards, Juan Hernandez -- Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat S.L.

1 0

[ANN] oVirt 3.5.6 First Release Candidate is now available for testing
by Sandro Bonazzola 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

The oVirt Project is pleased to announce the availability of the First oVirt 3.5.6 Release Candidate for testing, as of October 29th, 2015. This release is available now for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.7, CentOS Linux 6.7 (or similar) and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1, CentOS Linux 7.1 (or similar). This release supports Hypervisor Hosts running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.7, CentOS Linux 6.7 (or similar), Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1, CentOS Linux 7.1 (or similar) and Fedora 21. This release includes updated packages for: - oVirt Engine - oVirt Engine client - oVirt Engine SDK - oVirt Hosted Engine HA - QEMU KVM and its dependencies - VDSM See the release notes [1] for a list of fixed bugs. Please refer to release notes [1] for Installation / Upgrade instructions. a new oVirt Live ISO is already available [2]. Please note that mirrors[3] may need usually one day before being synchronized. Please refer to the release notes for known issues in this release. Please add yourself to the test page[4] if you're testing this release. [1] http://www.ovirt.org/OVirt_3.5.6_Release_Notes [2] http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.5-pre/iso/ovirt-live/ [3] http://www.ovirt.org/Repository_mirrors#Current_mirrors [4] http://www.ovirt.org/Testing/oVirt_3.5.6_Testing -- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com

1 0

Fwd: System V to systemd unit migration
by Sandro Bonazzola 28 Oct '15

28 Oct '15

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> Date: Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:12 PM Subject: System V to systemd unit migration To: devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At the FESCo meeting on October 14th, it was decided that the time has come to finally complete the migration away from System V init scripts. What does this mean for you as a packager? When we branch from Rawhide for Fedora 24 (currently scheduled for February 2nd, 2016), we will be immediately retiring any package in the Fedora collection that relies on a System V init script instead of a systemd unit file to start. We will consider reasonable requests to delay this action on a case-by-case basis for anyone who submits a ticket to FESCo no later than 23:59 UTC on January 12, 2016. There is no plan to remove System V compatibility from Fedora, due to the necessity of supporting legacy third-party software. We are also not making any changes at all to the EPEL project. EPEL packages may continue to use System V init scripts (in the case of EPEL 5 and EPEL 6, there is no other option). We will be going through the Wiki packaging documentation over the next month and updating all related entries to reflect this change in policy. This will be the first such announcement. The Change Wrangler will be sending additional reminders from now until February 2nd, so no one will be surprised by this event. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlYxEAAACgkQeiVVYja6o6NmxwCeI7gSKCwmQ7AtBqoM3MoB8Q7a SlgAniagJ8mrWWmr/BTqEyltF21FRbBd =U6rs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ devel-announce mailing list devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce -- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com

1 0

Call for Proposals: Virtualization & IaaS Devroom at FOSDEM 2016
by Mikey Ariel 28 Oct '15

28 Oct '15

I'm happy to announce that the call for proposals is now open for the virtualization and Infrastructure-as-a-Service devroom at FOSDEM 2016. See the full text in this blog post: http://community.redhat.com/blog/2015/10/call-for-proposals-fosdem16-virtua… Please don't hesitate to ping me with any questions, as well as share this post with people or projects that you think might be interested. Cheers, Mikey -- Mikey Ariel Community Lead, oVirt www.ovirt.org "To be is to do" (Socrates) "To do is to be" (Jean-Paul Sartre) "Do be do be do" (Frank Sinatra) Mobile: +420-702-131-141 IRC: mariel / thatdocslady Twitter: @ThatDocsLady

1 0

Re: [ovirt-devel] [ATN] Introduction of RESTAPI metamodel
by Juan Hernández 28 Oct '15

28 Oct '15

On 10/26/2015 04:56 PM, Roman Mohr wrote: > Hi Juan, > > The way to specify the contract look pretty clean and nice. > I would love to read a few words about the big picture. What is the > final scenario? > The motivation for this change is that currently we don't have a central place where the RESTAPI is specified, rather we have several different places, using several different technologies: * XML schema for the data model. * JAX-RS for part of the operational model (without the parameters). * rsdl_metadata.yaml for the parameters of the operational model. This makes it difficult to infer information about the model. For example, the generators of the SDKs have to download the XML schema, and the RSDL (which is generated from the JAX-RS interfaces using reflection and combining it with the information from the rsdl_metadata.yaml file) and then they have to do their own computations to extract what they need. Same happens with the CLI: it has to extract the information it needs from the Python code generated for the Python SDK, yet another level of indirection. We are also lacking a comprehensive reference documentation of the RESTAPI. What we currently have has been written by hand, and gets out of sync very quickly, and we don't even notice. To solve these issues I intend to have the specification of the RESTAPI only in one place, and using only one technology. I decided to use Java interfaces for that. Note however that they are just the support for the information, like paper is the support for ink. I decided to use Java because it is easy to create, modify and re-factor using tools familiar to most of us. These source of these interfaces is analysed (using QDox, currently) and a "model" of the RESTAPI is generated in memory. This model is independent of the supporting Java source, and easy to consume. For example, imagine that you want to list all the types available in the model and for each one display its documentation: Model model = ...; for (Type type : model.getTypes()) { Name name = type.getName(); String doc = type.getDoc(); System.out.println(name + ": " + doc); } Something like this, but more elaborate, will be part of a web application that provides comprehensive reference documentation, assuming that we dedicate the time to write documentation comments in the specification. I intend to use this model also to do simplify the generators of the SDKs and the CLI. In addition these are some of the things that I would like to change in the near future (for 4.0): * Move the specification of the parameters of operations out of the rsdl_metadata.yaml file and into the model. For example: @Service public VmService { /** * The operation to add a virtual machine. */ interface Add { /** * The representation of the virtual machine is received * as parameter, and the representation of the created * virtual machine is returned as result. */ @In @Out Vm vm(); /** * In the future, we will be able to specify other * parameters here. */ @In Boolean force(); /** * Even with default values. */ @In default Boolean force() { return true; } /** * And we will be able to specify constraints, which * will replace the rsdl_metadata.yaml file. */ @Constraint default boolean vmNameMustNotBeNull() { return vm().name() != null; } } } * Enforce the constraints automatically. If the constraints are in the model, then we can just check them and reject requests before delivering them to the application. Currently we do this manually (and often forget) with calls to "validate(...)" methods. * Generate the Java classes directly from the model. Instead of Model -> XML Schema -> Java, we can do Model -> Java. This will allow us to solve some of the XJC compiler limitations, like the horrible way we handle arrays today. * Replace JAX-RS with a simpler infrastructure that supports better streaming and CDI injection. * Add support for multiple versions of the API, using the "Version" header, and generating different Java classes for entities and services. For example, if we have versions 4 and 5 of the model as separate artifacts, then we can generate "V4Vm" and "V5Vm" entity classes, and "V4VmService" and "V5VmService" service classes. These can be used simultaneously in the server, so we can have in the same engine implementations for multiple versions. The final picture isn't completely defined yet. Regards, Juan Hernandez > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Juan Hernández <jhernand(a)redhat.com > <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Hello, > > I will soon merge the following patches that introduce a new way to > specify the contracts of the RESTAPI: > > restapi: Introduce metamodel > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/45852 > > restapi: Use metamodel > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/46478 > > restapi: Generate JAX-RS interfaces from model > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/47337 > > > Looks pretty much like we are replacing one way of annotating things > with another way of specifying things. > Could you elaborate what the benefit of that way of description is? > > How would I customize endpoints with e.g. @Gzip annotations? Would I at > the end still have my JAX-RS annotates resource classes? > > > These patches introduce a new "metamodel" concept, and move the current > specification of the RESTAPI based on XML schema and JAX-RS interfaces > to a new "model" built on the new metamodel. > > > What does this mean for you in practical terms? Currently when you want > to introduce or modify one of the data types used by the RESTAPI you > start by modifying the XML schema. Once the patches are merged the XML > schema will never be touched, as it will be automatically generated from > the "model". For example, imagine that you need to add a new "color" > attribute to the "VM" entity. To do so with the new model you will have > to modify the following file, which is the specification of the "Vm" > entity, written as a Java interface: > > > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/46478/16/backend/manager/modules/restapi/model… > > In that interface you will have to add a line like this: > > String color(); > > Note that this Java interface is just the specification of the entity, > it won't be used at all during runtime. Instead of that the XML schema > will be generated from it, and then Java will be generated from the XML > schema, as we do today (this will change in the future, but not yet). > > Same for the services. If you want to add a new "paint" action to the > "Vm" resource then you won't modify the JAX-RS interfaces, instead of > that you will modify the following file, which is the specification of > the "Vm" service, written as a Java interface: > > > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/47337/6/backend/manager/modules/restapi/model/… > > In that interface you will need to add a sub-interface representing the > action: > > interface Paint { > } > > The JAX-RS interface will be generated from that. Currently these > sub-interfaces are empty. In the future they will contain the > specifications of the parameters (currently in the rsdl_metadata.yml > file). > > > > These changes will currently affect only the specification of the > RESTAPI, not the implementation, so in in the "Backend*Resource" classes > things won't change yet. > > > Currently I do not really understand where we are going here. Are we > trying to get rid of rdsl? > > So basically two questions: > > 1) What is the final goal? > 2) What speaks agains using Hibernate validator on Daos in combination > with JAX-RS annotated resources (and just removing all interfaces, as > far as I can see we only have one implementation per endpoint) and > creating all schemas and clients through SWAGGER tooling? > > > If you have doubts, please let me know. > > Regards, > Juan Hernandez > > -- > Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta > 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain > Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat > S.L. > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel(a)ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > Thanks, > > Roman -- Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat S.L.

3 16

Requiring Java 8 during runtime
by Juan Hernández 28 Oct '15

28 Oct '15

Hello, As you probably know oVirt Engine 4 will use WildFly 10, and that requires Java 8. The version of WildFly that we currently use is 8.2.1, and it can work with both Java 7 and Java 8. In order to ease the transition I'm about to merge the following patch, that will require Java 8 during runtime: core: Require Java 8 during runtime https://gerrit.ovirt.org/46872 The implication of this for you is that you must make sure that you have Java 8 installed in the machine where you run your the engine. Fedora 22 only supports Java 8, so that isn't a problem. EL6 supports both Java 7 and Java 8, so make sure that you have Java 8 installed: yum -y install java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel If you have objections please speak now, otherwise I will merge the patch tomorrow. Regards, Juan Hernandez -- Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat S.L.

4 5

rethinking fake-kvm and faqemu
by Martin Polednik 27 Oct '15

27 Oct '15

Hello everyone, I've been reworking the fake_kvm and faqemu VDSM hook to make them somewhat more usable and mostly to allow testing of ppc64le on x86_64 based hosts. TL;DR version: checkout [1], enable fake_kvm and happy ppc64le hacking :) Current fake_kvm isn't really a hook and is contained within 'caps' module. This is wrong for multiple reasons, the most important one being mixing optional with mainline code. Another issue appears when one tries to move the fake_kvm code into a hook: the whole notion of architectures within VDSM is contained within the 'caps' module. The patch series, which git tip is at [1], introduces new cpuinfo module that moves information related to architecture to 'cpuinfo' module of the VDSM library. Intermediate benefit is that current hooks and library code can access the information related to host's cpu. This allows for moving fake_kvm code into a hook that I've called fakearch. Fakearch is, in my opinion, more suitable name - there is barely any KVM faking, but the host 'fakes' selected architecture. Faqemu is, on the other hand, a hook. Unfortunately it wasn't really updated and doesn't allow running VMs under fake architecture. The series therefore try to refactor it to allow cross-arch VMs to be started (the VM actually uses host architecture, but from engine's point of view it's running on the faked arch). So far tested cross-arch runs are * x86_64->x86_64 (faqemu functionality), * x86_64->ppc64le (the most important one), * ppc64le->x86_64, * ppc64le->ppc64le (faqemu for Power). I'm interested in your reviews and comments regarding this effort! [1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/46962/ Best regards, mpolednik

3 6

[oVirt 3.6 Localization Question #36] "Network's configurations differ from"
by Yuko Katabami 27 Oct '15

27 Oct '15

Hello all, Here is another question. *File:* ApplicationConstants *Resource ID:* hostOutOfSyncPreviewSentence *String: *Network's configurations differ from *Question:* Is this a part of an error message, followed by another string? Could you please show an example how the final message is going to be shown to users? Kind regards, Yuko Katabami

1 0

[oVirt 3.6 Localization Question #35] "QoS Out average"
by Yuko Katabami 27 Oct '15

27 Oct '15

Hello all, I would like to ask for your help with the following question. *File:* ApplicationConstants *Resource IDs:* outAverageLinkShareOutOfSyncPopUp outAverageRealTimeOutOfSyncPopUp outAverageUpperLimitOutOfSyncPopUp *Strings: * QoS Out average link share QoS Out average real time QoS Out average upper limit *Question: *Could anyone please tell us where these strings appear in the GUI and how they are used? Kind regards, Yuko Katabami

1 0