pyrax
pyrax copied to clipboard
pycontribs
Add client to talk to RackConnect api
This patch adds a client to talk with the rackconnect api. Currently, it only deals with adding/removing dedicated loadbalancers and assigning/removing public IP's to cloudservers. These are the only services which are currently (at the time of this PR) exposed via the rackconnect api: http://docs.rcv3.apiary.io/
I'm not too familiar with RackConnect, but what would it take to bring your patch from a simple client to a fully featured client?
I haven't reviewed this yet, but your first message is worded as if this is only a subset of the available functionality, as a simple client that only does a few things. Can you expand on what isn't supported in this change, if anything?
Coverage remained the same when pulling 79211ef21f631fd9150d0056d98df3d4dd1d8fa7 on pratikmallya:master into 6657a541a5fae8fc5abf7b4d1258c36bcfc91f07 on rackspace:working.
:-1: for some minor nits inline.
AFAIK, this client implements everything that's currently available via the RCv3 API; not sure what you think is missing @pratikmallya.
@rs-randallburt update the code to take care of the minor nits. @rs-randallburt @briancurtin yes, this client implements everything that is currently available via the RackConnect API. I was referring to the features mentioned under "Coming Soon" in the api page.
Coverage decreased (-0.65%) when pulling 5351467144240ff1d93b53318826479e62247a15 on pratikmallya:master into ab62b33a287e9ab4a8039cdff483302c3ee83cd2 on rackspace:working.
Hey guys, what is the status on this PR? Is there a timeline for it to be reviewed and merged? @briancurtin @sivel
We're using this branch to successfully add and remove cloud servers to our load balancer pool.
Anything we can do to help get it merged? Does it need some docs?
I asked several times internally and never got any response about who will not only finish but also maintain this code. We are moving away from pyrax and will soon be announcing deprecation, so while this is something that has been around and would be acceptable to merge at some point before the deprecation, no one actively works on pyrax so this has to be taken on by some other person/team at Rackspace.
@pratikmallya are you willing to write documentation and look after this code once it's merged?
@briancurtin sure thing. Where should I add the documentation? Are we talking about inline code documentation?
In the docs folder, similar to how the other services are documented. It's more of a user guide.
I hate to say this, but you've already deprecated pyrax. If you are telling people not to invest in development of pyrax for the future, it's deprecated. No one with any sense would continue to develop anything except a trivial throw-away app with it. You just haven't given a path forward yet, and that's totally un-fanatical.
@pratikmallya @briancurtin is there any update here? is there anything we can do to help if this is still blocked? i would very much like to write a few new ansible modules around this code, whether it is soon-to-be-deprecated or not (unless there is another option?), and i'm happy to help out here in whatever fashion to get this stuff live. fwiw we'll fork, rebase and test in the near-term.
I don't have any plans of merging this because we don't have any plans of releasing or supporting it at this time. I've heard rumblings of adding RackConnect support to the Rackspace plugin for OpenStack SDK, but don't have any estimates for that yet.
@davidquarles fwiw, we've resigned ourselves to maintaining our own fork of this code until there's a supported client.
@rs-randallburt Is that fork available anywhere? We need to talk to a RC v3 in a new env (all the previous ones appear to be RC v2) and it would be great to be able to install your version of PyRAX into our venv's...
@proffalken no, but you should be able to grab this patch and merge it locally. In the meantime, I can ask around and see what we can make available if anything.