[libvirt-ci RFC PATCH 00/13] Introduce a new global TOML config file for lcitool
eskultet at redhat.com
Fri Apr 24 06:47:06 UTC 2020
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 15:28 +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > This series is trying to consolidate the number of config files we currently
> > recognize under ~/.config/lcitool to a single global TOML config file. Thanks
> > to this effort we can expose more seetings than we previously could which will
> > come handy in terms of generating cloudinit images for OpenStack.
> > Patches 1-4 patches are just a little extra - not heavily related to the series
> > See patch 5/13 why TOML was selected.
> First of all, thanks for tackling this! It's something that we've
> sorely needed for a while now.
> Now, I know I'm the one who suggested TOML in the first place... But
> looking at the series now I can't help but think, why not YAML? O:-)
To be honest, even before you originally mentioned TOML, I myself had INI in
mind, so then I thought, yeah, why not go with TOML then, it's similar and more
I did some comparison of several formats, because like you say, with YAML we'd
be more close to Ansible and I was on the cusp of choosing between YAML and
TOML and I felt like TOML was still more readable and expressive in terms of
simple configuration (and that's what Linux users are IMO used to from INI).
I was never a big fan of YAML really and when the dictionaries and list happen
to intertwine and nest a lot, YAML looses its readability quite quickly IMO,
which I never felt with TOML, but it's fair to say that my TOML experience is
very limited. That said, I don't expect us to have such a massive config, so
that multiple levels of YAML nesting will be necessary :).
> Since we're using it extensively already due to Ansible, I think it
> would make sense to use it for the configuration file as well. It's
> easy enough to consume for a human, and we wouldn't need to drag in
> an additional dependency. I also believe, perhaps naively, that
> adapting your code to use YAML instead of TOML wouldn't require much
> work - from the Python point of view, you basically end up with a
> dictionary in both cases.
> Feel free to argue against this suggestion! For example, if you agree
> with it in principle but feel like it's unfair of me to ask you to
> rework your code, I'm happy to port it myself.
I'd still prefer TOML, but I don't really have a compelling reason to argue
against YAML other than readability which I already admitted to be just a
matter of taste. Now on a more serious note, I'll wait for your detailed review
and then rework it in YAML in vX.
> As for the rest of the series - I've only skimmed it so far, but I
> did not spot anything horribly wrong with it at first glance. I'll
> provide an actual, detailed review next week.
More information about the libvir-list