)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6512c2169152a431653dd00217e88ee7bfc98e1d","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"f68625b5_21b5cac0","updated":"2024-11-08 21:26:06.000000000","message":"This is obviously a compromise between upgrades, greenfield and conflicting\ngoals. personally i am ok with the approach in the spec and i think its inline\nwith the ptg discussion.\n\nif dan is ok with this as a path to move forward then i think we can proceed with this.","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"27e993a0b63c2bb435cbc265f10643ad49c0706d","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"abb40b16_708bb842","updated":"2024-11-08 21:15:19.000000000","message":"https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/934493 should fix the docs issue","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"6ef2183e2a7c13e594ef07d70c7a428464c418f9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"a67819a8_a92cb957","updated":"2024-11-14 20:39:55.000000000","message":"I\u0027m going to +2 but not +W to leave some room to read my comment. If we decide to punt for now then I\u0027ll add the +W (or Sean can) but I think we should be conscious of the decision we\u0027re making to tie the high and low-level admin functions together with only a tenuous \"be sure not to forget...\" linkage.","commit_id":"b4b4aa4fe1b40c3695bf39b6c5a54ffa41f7b5c8"}],"specs/2025.1/approved/unified-limits-nova-unset-limits.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6512c2169152a431653dd00217e88ee7bfc98e1d","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":60,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":61,"context_line":""},{"line_number":62,"context_line":"The proposal in this spec is to add a new list configuration option"},{"line_number":63,"context_line":"``[quota]unified_limits_required_resources`` which defaults to ``[\u0027servers\u0027]``."},{"line_number":64,"context_line":"The configured list will contain resource names of resources that we be"},{"line_number":65,"context_line":"_required_ to have a limit set in Keystone."},{"line_number":66,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"435af70a_a45507bb","line":63,"range":{"start_line":63,"start_character":0,"end_line":63,"end_character":79},"updated":"2024-11-08 21:26:06.000000000","message":"ack\n\nin the ptg we changed this form a bool to a list of required limts that must always be present\n\nhttps://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.4f297ee4698e02c16c4007f7ee76b7c1#L239\n\nthis consitent with that change in direction\n\nhttps://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/923807/3/specs/2024.2/approved/unified-limits-nova-unset-limits.rst#57","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6512c2169152a431653dd00217e88ee7bfc98e1d","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":71,"context_line":"requests to allocate that resource will be accepted (unlimited quota)."},{"line_number":72,"context_line":""},{"line_number":73,"context_line":"The list can also be set to an empty list, which will allow unlimited quota for"},{"line_number":74,"context_line":"all resources."},{"line_number":75,"context_line":""},{"line_number":76,"context_line":"A DEBUG message will be logged each time a resource not in the required"},{"line_number":77,"context_line":"resources list is allocated."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"b2a40488_e08fffac","line":74,"updated":"2024-11-08 21:26:06.000000000","message":"+1\ncompared to the previous spec I think this proposal is actually simple to explain to operators and I think this is a reasonable starting point\n\nwe could make other limits required but starting with the sever limit i think\nis a reasonable requirement.","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"9a5bfdb50d62c8c69331e2ea1314a8dcb6f4a896","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":71,"context_line":"requests to allocate that resource will be accepted (unlimited quota)."},{"line_number":72,"context_line":""},{"line_number":73,"context_line":"The list can also be set to an empty list, which will allow unlimited quota for"},{"line_number":74,"context_line":"all resources."},{"line_number":75,"context_line":""},{"line_number":76,"context_line":"A DEBUG message will be logged each time a resource not in the required"},{"line_number":77,"context_line":"resources list is allocated."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"7456fa7b_a95b824b","line":74,"in_reply_to":"b2a40488_e08fffac","updated":"2024-11-10 01:40:03.000000000","message":"After I implemented the list I thought the same thing, that it seems more clear/simple than the last proposal.","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6512c2169152a431653dd00217e88ee7bfc98e1d","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":88,"context_line":"be realistic."},{"line_number":89,"context_line":""},{"line_number":90,"context_line":".. _[1]: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.limit/+/899415"},{"line_number":91,"context_line":""},{"line_number":92,"context_line":"Data model impact"},{"line_number":93,"context_line":"-----------------"},{"line_number":94,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"b032868f_84cf5715","line":91,"updated":"2024-11-08 21:26:06.000000000","message":"nit: you could also list the bool option form last cycle and or just link to the previous spec here\nhttps://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/923807/3/specs/2024.2/approved/unified-limits-nova-unset-limits.rst","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"1167c508cdd0738fd76b5899a4bee907a1fe8cca","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":88,"context_line":"be realistic."},{"line_number":89,"context_line":""},{"line_number":90,"context_line":".. _[1]: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.limit/+/899415"},{"line_number":91,"context_line":""},{"line_number":92,"context_line":"Data model impact"},{"line_number":93,"context_line":"-----------------"},{"line_number":94,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"283ca82c_ee577669","line":91,"in_reply_to":"43f0de49_0ceafb3c","updated":"2024-11-19 04:30:25.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"9a5bfdb50d62c8c69331e2ea1314a8dcb6f4a896","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":88,"context_line":"be realistic."},{"line_number":89,"context_line":""},{"line_number":90,"context_line":".. _[1]: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.limit/+/899415"},{"line_number":91,"context_line":""},{"line_number":92,"context_line":"Data model impact"},{"line_number":93,"context_line":"-----------------"},{"line_number":94,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"43f0de49_0ceafb3c","line":91,"in_reply_to":"b032868f_84cf5715","updated":"2024-11-10 01:40:03.000000000","message":"Hm, yeah I didn\u0027t think of that. I can add it if I need to respin.","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6512c2169152a431653dd00217e88ee7bfc98e1d","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":181,"context_line":"resources they want to require to enforce quota. All other resources will be"},{"line_number":182,"context_line":"considered to have unlimited quota until the deployer sets registered limits"},{"line_number":183,"context_line":"for them in Keystone."},{"line_number":184,"context_line":""},{"line_number":185,"context_line":"Implementation"},{"line_number":186,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":187,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"52689a56_0a07aac2","line":184,"updated":"2024-11-08 21:26:06.000000000","message":"the trade-off with this approach is the onboarding process for enforcing a new limit as required si slightly more complex but I think that is a reasonable tradeoff.","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"6ef2183e2a7c13e594ef07d70c7a428464c418f9","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":181,"context_line":"resources they want to require to enforce quota. All other resources will be"},{"line_number":182,"context_line":"considered to have unlimited quota until the deployer sets registered limits"},{"line_number":183,"context_line":"for them in Keystone."},{"line_number":184,"context_line":""},{"line_number":185,"context_line":"Implementation"},{"line_number":186,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":187,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"f7a96ae3_4251c743","line":184,"in_reply_to":"52689a56_0a07aac2","updated":"2024-11-14 20:39:55.000000000","message":"Yeah, this ^. I don\u0027t really agree that it\u0027s a reasonable tradeoff, since the linkage has to be remembered to avoid resource exhaustion *and* because the people doing those two acts are likely different. Perhaps we can consider another way of denoting \"all resources must have a limit\" as a follow-on.\n\nOr perhaps we add a second list of things that don\u0027t have to have a limit and let them set one list or the other but not both?","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"d8ba35b470ad3e36cc27f4b25512d858f01ef72e","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":181,"context_line":"resources they want to require to enforce quota. All other resources will be"},{"line_number":182,"context_line":"considered to have unlimited quota until the deployer sets registered limits"},{"line_number":183,"context_line":"for them in Keystone."},{"line_number":184,"context_line":""},{"line_number":185,"context_line":"Implementation"},{"line_number":186,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":187,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"05036477_447ef7b1","line":184,"in_reply_to":"f7a96ae3_4251c743","updated":"2024-11-14 20:51:11.000000000","message":"im not aware of any existing config option that works that way in nova today\ni know argpars has the concept of a mutually exclusive group\nim not sure if that is native in oslo.config but it should be pretty easy to do in nova if not.\n\n\nim not opposed to having both a required list and an unlimited list provided both are aviable for the operator to choose form to match their workflow.","commit_id":"e6c975c428c0cdd8bc6ef1fefd24721005ff399e"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"6ef2183e2a7c13e594ef07d70c7a428464c418f9","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":157,"context_line":"current behavior is to default all limits to zero) and should not experience"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"any change in quota enforcement for those resources."},{"line_number":159,"context_line":""},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"After upgrading however, any _new_ resource the deployer adds to the cloud will"},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"default to unlimited quota until the deployer  sets a registered limit for"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"it in Keystone. And if the deployer wants to make the new resource a required"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"resource, they need to add it to ``[quota]unified_limits_required_resources``"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"for the ``nova-api`` and ``nova-conductor`` services."},{"line_number":165,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"445dc1b3_8fdd9bf1","line":162,"range":{"start_line":160,"start_character":0,"end_line":162,"end_character":15},"updated":"2024-11-14 20:39:55.000000000","message":"I just want to point out that this might scare me if I was a deployer. This is sort of a \"unknown unknowns\" thing where there\u0027s no way for them to opt into \"no resources are unlimited\" the way they opt into the inverse by setting the list empty as you describe above.\n\nI don\u0027t want to hold this up as a result of this, but this sort of feels like a treadmill that will require a mental link between any high-level admin op (i.e. defining a new flavor with a new resource request) and a low-level deployment op to update all the configs everywhere before they do that.","commit_id":"b4b4aa4fe1b40c3695bf39b6c5a54ffa41f7b5c8"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"013d8df4dc72d15e9217f2bde091dcec1f0105f6","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":157,"context_line":"current behavior is to default all limits to zero) and should not experience"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"any change in quota enforcement for those resources."},{"line_number":159,"context_line":""},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"After upgrading however, any _new_ resource the deployer adds to the cloud will"},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"default to unlimited quota until the deployer  sets a registered limit for"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"it in Keystone. And if the deployer wants to make the new resource a required"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"resource, they need to add it to ``[quota]unified_limits_required_resources``"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"for the ``nova-api`` and ``nova-conductor`` services."},{"line_number":165,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"f7a4f81c_a0578de7","line":162,"range":{"start_line":160,"start_character":0,"end_line":162,"end_character":15},"in_reply_to":"0f93e076_79a85926","updated":"2024-11-15 04:06:22.000000000","message":"A naming attempt with a goal of making it apparent 1) that the two options are related and 2) how the two options are related:\n\n```\n[quota]\nunified_limits_resource_strategy \u003d \u0027require_list\u0027 or \u0027ignore_list\u0027\nunified_limits_resource_list \u003d servers,class:VCPU,class:MEMORY_MB\n```","commit_id":"b4b4aa4fe1b40c3695bf39b6c5a54ffa41f7b5c8"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"6c9efa9f87aca8f5e8a4eed8e632cf2cf4d42aa1","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":157,"context_line":"current behavior is to default all limits to zero) and should not experience"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"any change in quota enforcement for those resources."},{"line_number":159,"context_line":""},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"After upgrading however, any _new_ resource the deployer adds to the cloud will"},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"default to unlimited quota until the deployer  sets a registered limit for"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"it in Keystone. And if the deployer wants to make the new resource a required"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"resource, they need to add it to ``[quota]unified_limits_required_resources``"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"for the ``nova-api`` and ``nova-conductor`` services."},{"line_number":165,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"ae52dc0c_38952fc7","line":162,"range":{"start_line":160,"start_character":0,"end_line":162,"end_character":15},"in_reply_to":"3a33abbb_fdb0ad19","updated":"2024-11-15 17:34:15.000000000","message":"I was trying to tie in \"list\" with the resource list -- like the strategy is a \"require list\" or an \"ignore list\" and then oh, the unified_limits_resource_list is right here. But maybe \"require\" and \"ignore\" is just as good.\n\nI kind of like `unified_limits_not_found_policy \u003d enforce | ignore` also.\n\nI can update this to not be specific about the config option names themselves.","commit_id":"b4b4aa4fe1b40c3695bf39b6c5a54ffa41f7b5c8"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"79b54d592dd1199dc0d4ecae67c3adee96e9e4c5","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":157,"context_line":"current behavior is to default all limits to zero) and should not experience"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"any change in quota enforcement for those resources."},{"line_number":159,"context_line":""},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"After upgrading however, any _new_ resource the deployer adds to the cloud will"},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"default to unlimited quota until the deployer  sets a registered limit for"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"it in Keystone. And if the deployer wants to make the new resource a required"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"resource, they need to add it to ``[quota]unified_limits_required_resources``"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"for the ``nova-api`` and ``nova-conductor`` services."},{"line_number":165,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"7d7f2e72_256d7002","line":162,"range":{"start_line":160,"start_character":0,"end_line":162,"end_character":15},"in_reply_to":"445dc1b3_8fdd9bf1","updated":"2024-11-14 21:55:40.000000000","message":"Hm.. yeah. That does sound laborious for the \"all required\" case. I would like for this config to be an easy UX if possible.\n\nI wonder if it might not be too confusing to have two options, something like:\n\n* `[quota]unified_limits_require_strategy` with `choices\u003d[\u0027all\u0027, \u0027none\u0027, \u0027list\u0027]` and the next option is only used if `[quota]unified_limits_require_strategy \u003d list`\n\n* `[quota]unified_limits_required_resources` that is a list of resources to require","commit_id":"b4b4aa4fe1b40c3695bf39b6c5a54ffa41f7b5c8"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"f4ab2ff0a6c216cc9bdb299bf4a4654ed1ee9769","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":157,"context_line":"current behavior is to default all limits to zero) and should not experience"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"any change in quota enforcement for those resources."},{"line_number":159,"context_line":""},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"After upgrading however, any _new_ resource the deployer adds to the cloud will"},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"default to unlimited quota until the deployer  sets a registered limit for"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"it in Keystone. And if the deployer wants to make the new resource a required"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"resource, they need to add it to ``[quota]unified_limits_required_resources``"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"for the ``nova-api`` and ``nova-conductor`` services."},{"line_number":165,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"869e0e4c_536197ec","line":162,"range":{"start_line":160,"start_character":0,"end_line":162,"end_character":15},"in_reply_to":"7d7f2e72_256d7002","updated":"2024-11-14 21:57:30.000000000","message":"I guess that doesn\u0027t really help the inverse case where someone might be like, \"require everything except these\". Maybe two mutually exclusive lists is really the only way?","commit_id":"b4b4aa4fe1b40c3695bf39b6c5a54ffa41f7b5c8"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"8ba6b497836a999ea95518cdf91fc50ad8989b27","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":157,"context_line":"current behavior is to default all limits to zero) and should not experience"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"any change in quota enforcement for those resources."},{"line_number":159,"context_line":""},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"After upgrading however, any _new_ resource the deployer adds to the cloud will"},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"default to unlimited quota until the deployer  sets a registered limit for"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"it in Keystone. And if the deployer wants to make the new resource a required"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"resource, they need to add it to ``[quota]unified_limits_required_resources``"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"for the ``nova-api`` and ``nova-conductor`` services."},{"line_number":165,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"0f93e076_79a85926","line":162,"range":{"start_line":160,"start_character":0,"end_line":162,"end_character":15},"in_reply_to":"869e0e4c_536197ec","updated":"2024-11-14 22:18:28.000000000","message":"Well, the other option I was sort of considering was something similar to what you have, which is:\n```\nunified_limits \u003d [\u0027servers\u0027, \u0027ram\u0027]\nunified_limits_strategy \u003d \u0027include\u0027 | \u0027exclude\u0027\n```\n\nBasically, provide a list, and then tell us whether it\u0027s \"all of those\" or \"all except those\". Maybe? The name of the list needs to be something better than what I have above, but can\u0027t be what you have currently, since it has \"required\" in the name.","commit_id":"b4b4aa4fe1b40c3695bf39b6c5a54ffa41f7b5c8"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"8689288d7e82a88b19e9177b7318fb01b2ce5861","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":157,"context_line":"current behavior is to default all limits to zero) and should not experience"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"any change in quota enforcement for those resources."},{"line_number":159,"context_line":""},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"After upgrading however, any _new_ resource the deployer adds to the cloud will"},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"default to unlimited quota until the deployer  sets a registered limit for"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"it in Keystone. And if the deployer wants to make the new resource a required"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"resource, they need to add it to ``[quota]unified_limits_required_resources``"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"for the ``nova-api`` and ``nova-conductor`` services."},{"line_number":165,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"3a33abbb_fdb0ad19","line":162,"range":{"start_line":160,"start_character":0,"end_line":162,"end_character":15},"in_reply_to":"a7c41a6e_a6347a43","updated":"2024-11-15 14:38:58.000000000","message":"I think a dict op pretty much does the same thing as the include or exclude list, but at the expense of more complexity, unless I\u0027m missing something.\n\nThat said, I\u0027m fine either way - defining it here before we merge this, or punting the actual config definition to the implementation patches.\n\nmelwitt, your names seem fine. I\u0027m not sure why \"ignore_list\" instead of just \"ignore\" but not a big deal.","commit_id":"b4b4aa4fe1b40c3695bf39b6c5a54ffa41f7b5c8"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6d0fae3dd102f010f392faa49e15887095ee0eb5","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":157,"context_line":"current behavior is to default all limits to zero) and should not experience"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"any change in quota enforcement for those resources."},{"line_number":159,"context_line":""},{"line_number":160,"context_line":"After upgrading however, any _new_ resource the deployer adds to the cloud will"},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"default to unlimited quota until the deployer  sets a registered limit for"},{"line_number":162,"context_line":"it in Keystone. And if the deployer wants to make the new resource a required"},{"line_number":163,"context_line":"resource, they need to add it to ``[quota]unified_limits_required_resources``"},{"line_number":164,"context_line":"for the ``nova-api`` and ``nova-conductor`` services."},{"line_number":165,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"a7c41a6e_a6347a43","line":162,"range":{"start_line":160,"start_character":0,"end_line":162,"end_character":15},"in_reply_to":"f7a4f81c_a0578de7","updated":"2024-11-15 10:25:04.000000000","message":"how about we be vague here and just say \"Configuration options will be provided to allow requiring or ignoring limits\" and move the discussion of how to model this to the implementation patches.\n\nif we are going with this level of complexity I\u0027m inclined to have a dictopt filed and a second policy flag for undefined limits\n```\nunified_limits \u003d \u0027servers\u0027:\u0027enforced\u0027,\u0027ram\u0027:\u0027unlimeted\u0027\nunified_limits_not_found_policy: enforced|unlimited\n```\nhttps://github.com/openstack/oslo.config/blob/68cefad313bd03522e99b3de95f1786ebea45d4b/doc/source/configuration/format.rst?plain\u003d1#L66-L75\n\nwith that said I\u0027m also ok with the current spec and just having the list of required/enforced limits and the rest being optional so im not too concenred.\nas long as we can eaisly express what to do when thre is no limit defied.","commit_id":"b4b4aa4fe1b40c3695bf39b6c5a54ffa41f7b5c8"}]}