[Freeipa-devel] [WIP PATCH] server-del: perform full master removal in managed topology

[Rob Crittenden]

Martin Babinsky wrote:
> This is a WIP patch which moves the `ipa-replica-manage del` subcommand
> to the 'server-del' API method and exposes it as CLI command[1]. A CI
> test suite is also included.
>
> There are some issues with the patch I would like to discuss in more
> detail on the list:
>
> 1.) In the original subcommand there was a lot of output (mostly print
> statements) during all stages of master removal. I have tried to port
> these as messages to the command which results in quite voluminous
> response sent back to the frontend. Should we try to reduce the output?

I don't think it applies anymore. These messages were there so the user 
would know something was happening. If it is an API command there isn't 
much we can do other than add something to the cli to print "This could 
take a bit" before making the call.

> 2.) In the original discussion[2] we assumed that the cleanup part would
> me a separate API method called during server_del postcallback. However
> since the two objects ended up sharing a lot of state (e.g. topology
> state from pre-callback, messages) i have merged it to server-del. That
> makes the code rather unwieldy but I found it difficult to keep the two
> entities separate without some hacking around framework capabilities

I haven't looked at the code but as a general principal having separate 
operations has saved our bacon on more than one occasion.

> 3.) since actions in post-callback require a knowledge about topology
> state gathered in pre-callback, I had to store some information in the
> command's context. Sorry about that, if you know about some way to
> circumvent me, let me know.

Looks like it is the only way since you are extending server_del. 
Another option would be to drop pre/post and add all this topology stuff 
directly to server_del execute.

> 4.) The master can not remove itself. I have implemented an ad-hoc
> forwarding of the request to other master that can do the job. Is this
> okay?

Assisted suicide?

What does this effectively do? Potentially disconnect it from the 
topology, perhaps to run as standalone for upgrade, integration or other 
testing (e.g. there might be valid reasons to do this)? If so that seems 
ok to me, or if too hacky you could just spit out a message directing 
them to disconnect from another host, but that would be strange in the 
UI I think.

> 5.) Since the original behavior of 'chekc_deleted_segments' was kept,
> the code can sometimes hang waiting for removal of some segments,
> especially during forced removal in wonky topologies. This can cause
> gateway timeout in JSON-RPC call and report false positive error back to
> the user. This makes a large part of 'TestServerDel' suite to fail. How
> should we handle this? Should we keep the original behavior?

Oh to have async calls...

I wonder if "I'm still here" messages could be sent. I'm not entirely 
sure this is possible with the framework but it might be one way to keep 
long-lived connections alive.

> 6.) There are some in-place imports of server-side code in some places.
> I'm not very happy about it and would be glad if we can agree on a way
> to fix this.

Is this to prevent imports on non-servers? You might look at trust for 
inspiration, it does this.

rob

>
> [1] https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5588
> [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2016-March/msg00335.html
>
>
>