#solum

Georgy Okrokvertskhov proposed a change to stackforge/solum: Add security context for each incoming request. https://review.openstack.org/64458

gokrokve, we have enable_authentication - can we at all run solum with it off?

gokrokve, just suggesting we kill it

as now we have to put code in to deal with a context=None

Ceilometer has this option

ceilometer doesn't have to create images and heat stacks

But I agree that without keystone information Solum will not work properly

I guess a side issue, but it just seems a curiosity

So if you believe that we need to have a keystone auth mandatory, we can remove this option

gokrokve, are you doing anything with remote_address?

So with enable_auth=False auth modules will work fine. Thay handle this option properly.

seems unused

This is the question how other components will react on empty context

No right now we don't use it. Do you need this information at all?

gokrokve, yeah - we need to talk to other clients

I don't but we could log it

or just remove it

Ok. Let me quickly remove it.

not sure where in the request path we do our log ("here is a new request")

Georgy Okrokvertskhov proposed a change to stackforge/solum: Add security context for each incoming request. https://review.openstack.org/64458

Removed remote address and fixed pep8 issues.

asalkeld: We can do this in a hook if you want. But probably it is better to do in each method and show which method got this request for processing.

I guess

Heh. There is a problem with public urls for triggers

that was bound to happen

hey alexheneveld

still awake?

1:19am in london :-O

asalkeld: aye, you stay up to talk to california and then before you know it australia comes online

haha

mind if i ping you in my morning though?

for sure, get some sleep

you'll get more out of me then :)

thx

Georgy Okrokvertskhov proposed a change to stackforge/solum: Add security context for each incoming request. https://review.openstack.org/64458

I added a check for a request path. The same we have in Auth wrapper.

I think we need to come back to this later and probably run a separate application instance in a thread for triggers service

gokrokve, print()

yes.

Georgy Okrokvertskhov proposed a change to stackforge/solum: Add security context for each incoming request. https://review.openstack.org/64458

I checked what is path. Firtunately it was just a string. And then forgot to remove debug print :-)

gokrokve, all good to me

enjoying the pleasures of http://synergy-foss.org/

A change was merged to stackforge/solum: Add UUID in API model https://review.openstack.org/77218

A change was merged to stackforge/solum: Refactor get_by_id to match get_by_uuid https://review.openstack.org/77271

A change was merged to stackforge/solum: Extend RequestContext class https://review.openstack.org/77290

devdatta-kulkarni proposed a change to stackforge/solum: Added data validation for name in POST assembly https://review.openstack.org/77251

devdatta-kulkarni proposed a change to stackforge/solum: Added data validation for name in POST assembly https://review.openstack.org/77251

picking kids up - brb

devdatta-kulkarni proposed a change to stackforge/solum: Added data validation for name in POST assembly https://review.openstack.org/77251

<http://ln-s.net/B:CM>; (at www.thoughtworks.com)

noorul: question about functionaltests. how do you run them locally? using devstack?

devkulkarni: Yes, you need atleast mysql, keystone and tempest services

is there documentation in our docs on how to do this?

Are you looking for devstack doc ?

But there is no such doc where we can see step by step explanation of how to run functional tests.

no, I was just wondering if we should add that somewhere to solum docs if it is not already there

If you look at devstack gate job for solum you would get a picture

I see. What do you think of adding the step by step explanation somewhere in our docs? That way, folks who want to add new functionaltests would have a way to testing those before submitting for reviews.

I think that will be helpful for new comers

Yes. I also think so that it would help. Since you have added functionaltests, may be you might be the best person to write those steps I think. The instructions could go somewhere in doc (or top-level README will also be fine to begin with).

I will do that

awesome!! I started thinking about this while reviewing Julien's patches. thats when I realized that there are still lot of functionaltests to be written and started looking around for instructions.

Angus Salkeld proposed a change to stackforge/solum: Add the project_id to the app build path https://review.openstack.org/77804

Angus Salkeld proposed a change to stackforge/solum: make buildpacks only when needed https://review.openstack.org/73950

Noorul Islam K M proposed a change to stackforge/solum: Add functional tests instructions to HACKING.rst https://review.openstack.org/77822