From: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>,
qemu-block@nongnu.org, libvir-list@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com,
mreitz@redhat.com, den@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] qapi: deprecate implicit filters
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:33:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5591197d-f66c-e79d-f92d-16e4c7b42cc1@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190815164821.GE7415@linux.fritz.box>
On 8/15/19 12:48 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 15.08.2019 um 18:07 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>> On 8/15/19 6:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 14.08.2019 um 21:27 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>>>>
>>>> This might be OK to do right away, though.
>>>>
>>>> I asked Markus this not too long ago; do we want to amend the QAPI
>>>> schema specification to allow commands to return with "Warning" strings,
>>>> or "Deprecated" stings to allow in-band deprecation notices for cases
>>>> like these?
>>>>
>>>> example:
>>>>
>>>> { "return": {},
>>>> "deprecated": True,
>>>> "warning": "Omitting filter-node-name parameter is deprecated, it will
>>>> be required in the future"
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> There's no "error" key, so this should be recognized as success by
>>>> compatible clients, but they'll definitely see the extra information.
>>>>
>>>> Part of my motivation is to facilitate a more aggressive deprecation of
>>>> legacy features by ensuring that we are able to rigorously notify users
>>>> through any means that they need to adjust their scripts.
>>>
>>> Who would read this, though? In the best case it ends up deep in a
>>> libvirt log that nobody will look at because there was no error. In the
>>> more common case, the debug level is configured so that QMP traffic
>>> isn't even logged.
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>
>> I believe you are right, but I also can't shake the feeling that this
>> attitude ensures that we'll never find a way to expose this information
>> to the end-user. Is this not too defeatist?
>
> I think the discussed approach that seemed most likely to me to succeed
> was adding a command line option that makes QEMU just crash if you use a
> deprecated feature, and enable that in libvirt test cases (or possibly
> even any non-release builds, though maybe it's a bit harsh there).
>
>> I think deprecation notices in the QMP stream has two benefits:
>>
>> 1) Any direct usages via qmp-shell or manual JSON connection are likely
>> to see this message in development or testing. I feel the usage of QEMU
>> directly is more likely to increase with time as other stacks seek to
>> work around libvirt.
>>
>> [Whether or not they should is another question, but I believe the
>> current reality to be that people are trying to.]
>
> I don't know about other people, but as a human user, I don't care about
> deprecation notices. As long as something works, I use it, and once I
> get an error message back, I'll use something else.
>
> If I manually enter drive_mirror and get a warning back, that doesn't
> tell me that libvirt still does the same thing and needs to be fixed. It
> just tells me that in the future I might need to change the commands
> that I use manually.
>
That the message we return needs to be *useful* doesn't sound like a
count against it.
> I guess this would still prevent adding new libvirt features that build
> on deprecated QEMU features because some manual testing will be involved
> there. But was this ever a problem?
>
No, because until recently we didn't deprecate anything.
>> 2) Programmatic deprecation notices can't be presented to a user at all
>> if we don't send them; at least this way it becomes libvirt's problem
>> over what to do with them. Perhaps even just in testing and regression
>> suites libvirt can assert that it sees no deprecation warnings (or
>> whitelist certain ones it knows about.)
>>
>> In the case of libvirt, it's not even necessarily about making sure the
>> end user sees it, because it isn't even necessarily the user's fault --
>> it's libvirt's. This is a sure-fire programmatic way to communicate
>> compatibility changes to libvirt.
>
> If libvirt uses this to make test cases fail, it could work.
>
Yeah, I think there's solid use there. I'll continue along in Markus's
thread.
> Kevin
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-15 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-14 10:07 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Deprecate implicit filters Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-08-14 10:07 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] qapi: deprecate drive-mirror and drive-backup Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-08-14 19:22 ` John Snow
2019-08-15 7:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] " Peter Krempa
2019-08-15 21:24 ` John Snow
2019-08-14 10:07 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] qapi: deprecate implicit filters Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-08-14 19:27 ` John Snow
2019-08-14 20:34 ` [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] " Maxim Levitsky
2019-08-15 10:49 ` [Qemu-devel] " Kevin Wolf
2019-08-15 11:45 ` [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] " Peter Krempa
2019-08-15 14:04 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-08-29 16:45 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2019-08-29 17:57 ` John Snow
2019-08-30 10:07 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2019-08-30 18:11 ` John Snow
2019-09-02 12:04 ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-22 8:41 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-11-22 11:32 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2019-08-15 16:07 ` [Qemu-devel] " John Snow
2019-08-15 16:48 ` Kevin Wolf
2019-08-15 17:33 ` John Snow [this message]
2019-08-15 19:24 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-08-16 8:20 ` Kevin Wolf
2019-08-16 12:33 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-08-16 12:58 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-08-15 14:16 ` [Qemu-devel] Exposing feature deprecation to machine clients (was: [PATCH 2/2] qapi: deprecate implicit filters) Markus Armbruster
2019-08-15 17:40 ` John Snow
2019-11-07 18:52 ` [Qemu-devel] Exposing feature deprecation to machine clients Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-11-07 19:13 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-08 6:41 ` Deprecating stuff for 4.2 (was: [Qemu-devel] Exposing feature deprecation to machine clients) Markus Armbruster
2019-11-08 9:36 ` Deprecating stuff for 4.2 Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-11-08 8:35 ` [Qemu-devel] Exposing feature deprecation to machine clients Max Reitz
2019-08-29 15:59 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] qapi: deprecate implicit filters Christophe de Dinechin
2019-08-29 17:18 ` [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] " John Snow
2019-08-23 9:22 ` [Qemu-devel] " Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-08-27 20:12 ` John Snow
2019-08-28 9:20 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-08-28 17:48 ` John Snow
2019-08-29 14:44 ` Peter Krempa
2019-08-29 15:17 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-08-29 17:50 ` John Snow
2019-08-29 15:00 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-08-29 15:16 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2019-09-02 12:14 ` Kevin Wolf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5591197d-f66c-e79d-f92d-16e4c7b42cc1@redhat.com \
--to=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=den@openvz.org \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=libvir-list@redhat.com \
--cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=vsementsov@virtuozzo.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).