[Engine-devel] REST-API: Problem with additional DELETE action at collection level

[Shubhendu Tripathi]

Self and Ori had a detailed discussion on the topic.

Points discussed -

1. Ori mentioned that Michael and Ori did not mean to have a separate 
DELETE action for the purpose of commit in previous discussions.
2. Ori tried to understand the intention behind the separate commit 
command in gluster and suggested that ideally gluster should remember 
that a migration of data is started on the set of bricks, and if there 
is a delete fired on the same bricks it should perform a commit action 
because commit is nothing but a delete action
3. Ori suggested that in an ideal situation APIs needed would be
     - start migrate
     - stop migrate
     - delete bricks
     - retain bricks
4. As suggested by Ori, the remove bricks action should internally 
decide if there was a data migration, started on the set of bricks. If 
so, it should effectively fire a commit for the set of bricks. And if 
there was not occurrence of data migration it should behave like a 
normal force remove action.

Ori, please add your comments if I have missed out anything here.

Sahina, request your comments on the same.

Thanks and Regards,
Shubhendu

On 11/11/2013 10:30 AM, Shubhendu Tripathi wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 11:06 PM, Moti Asayag wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Shubhendu Tripathi" <shtripat at redhat.com>
>>> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>, "Michael Pasternak" 
>>> <mpastern at redhat.com>, oliel at redhat.com
>>> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2013 8:37:30 AM
>>> Subject: [Engine-devel] REST-API: Problem with additional DELETE 
>>> action at    collection level
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> There is a DELETE action defined at collection level for Gluster 
>>> Bricks with
>>> signature -
>>>
>>> @DELETE
>>> public Response remove ( GlusterBricks bricks );
>>>
>>> Recently we had needed a commit action to remove migrated bricks.
>>> After multiple rounds of discussion on introducing a commit action 
>>> to remove
>>> migrated bricks we introduced a DELETE action [1] which accepts a 
>>> boolean
>>> parameter isForce.
>>> If the parameter is set to true , forced deletion of bricks happens 
>>> without
>>> any data migration.
>>> And if the parameter is not set or set to false, the deletion is 
>>> meant for a
>>> brick on which migration has already taken place.
>>>
>>> To achieve the above functionality we introduced another DELETE 
>>> action with
>>> new signature as below and also marked the first action as deprecated -
>>>
>>> @DELETE
>>> public Response remove ( Action action );
>>>
>>> The problem arises now as the new api works fine for all possible 
>>> scenarios
>>> with below input structure -
>>>
>>> <action>
>>> <force>true/false</force>
>>> <bricks>
>>> <brick>
>>> <name> brick1-name</name>
>>> <name>brick2-name</name>
>>> </brick>
>>> </bricks>
>>> </action>
>>>
>>> BUT after these change backward compatibility is broken and the old 
>>> api does
>>> not work.
>>> If we try invoking old DELETE with bricks as input parameter as 
>>> below, it
>>> still invokes the new api and gives an error saying " Invalid 
>>> parameter ".
>>>
>> Maybe I've missed it some where, but i wasn't able to find the new 
>> 'force' parameter
>> in the rsdl, and specifically not in optionalArguments list of:
>>
>> - name: 
>> /api/clusters/{cluster:id}/glustervolumes/{glustervolume:id}/bricks|rel=delete
>>
>> and perhaps the correct approach will be to deprecate this signature 
>> and introduce a new
>> one with the 'force' in the 'mandatoryArguments' section.
> Moti, I have introduced another methods remove of DELETE type which 
> takes Action as input.
> I pass list of bricks and force as parameter in the same Action.
>
> Also, I tried marking the old method deprecated and introduced the new 
> one BUT as mentioned above, after introduction of new DELETE with 
> Action parameter old one STOPS working.
> Is it OK to stop working for a method if its deprecated?? I don't feel 
> so. Please comment.
>>
>>> <bricks>
>>> <brick id="brick1-id"/>
>>> <brick id="brick2-id"/>
>>> </bricks>
>>>
>>> Kindly suggest a solution around the same.
>>>
>>> PS: Both the actions are defined at collection level (
>>> /api/clusters/<cluster-id>/glustervolumes/<volume-id>/bricks )
>>>
>>> [1]: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/21043/
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> Shubhendu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Engine-devel mailing list
>>> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>
>