[Freeipa-devel] [PATCHES] 0104-0106 Provide means of displaying warning and informational messages on clients
Martin Kosek
mkosek at redhat.com
Thu Feb 21 15:58:02 UTC 2013
On 02/21/2013 03:09 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 02:06 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 12:50 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>> On 02/20/2013 05:17 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>> On 02/19/2013 12:15 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>> On 02/13/2013 11:18 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/29/2013 05:06 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/04/2013 07:20 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/14/2012 09:04 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 13.12.2012 18:09, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/2012 04:43 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/2012 10:59 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's time to give this to another set of eyes :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Design document: http://freeipa.org/page/V3/Messages
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/2732
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> More info is in commit messages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3294, I needed to
>>>>>>>>>>>> change the
>>>>>>>>>>>> design document: when the client doesn't send the API version, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's at a version before capabilities were introduced (i.e. 2.47).
>>>>>>>>>>>> The client still gets a warning if the version is missing. Except
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>> commands where IPA didn't send a version -- ping, cert-show, etc. --
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> warning wouldn't pass validation on old clients. (I'm assuming that
>>>>>>>>>>>> our client
>>>>>>>>>>>> is so far the only one that validates so strictly.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did a basic test of this patch and also quickly read through the
>>>>>>>>>>> patches and
>>>>>>>>>>> besides nitpicks (like unused inspect module in
>>>>>>>>>>> tests/test_ipalib/test_messages.py in patch 0105) I did not find any
>>>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>>>> errors in the Python code.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Noted, will fix in future versions of the patch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, this patch breaks WebUI badly, I did not even get to a
>>>>>>>>>>> log in
>>>>>>>>>>> screen.
>>>>>>>>>>> Cooperation with Petr Vobornik will be needed. In my case, I got
>>>>>>>>>>> blank
>>>>>>>>>>> screen
>>>>>>>>>>> and Javascript error:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> TypeError: IPA.messages.dialogs is undefined
>>>>>>>>>>> https://vm-037.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com/ipa/ui/ipa.js
>>>>>>>>>>> Line 1460
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I assume this is related to the Internal Error that was returned in
>>>>>>>>>>> the JSON call
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> "error": null,
>>>>>>>>>>> "id": null,
>>>>>>>>>>> "principal": "admin at IDM.LAB.BOS.REDHAT.COM",
>>>>>>>>>>> "result": {
>>>>>>>>>>> "count": 5,
>>>>>>>>>>> "results": [
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> "error": "an internal error has occurred",
>>>>>>>>>>> "error_code": 903,
>>>>>>>>>>> "error_name": "InternalError"
>>>>>>>>>>> },
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This can be reproduced with:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> # curl -v -H "Content-Type:application/json" -H
>>>>>>>>>>> "referer:https://`hostname`/ipa" -H "Accept:applicaton/json"
>>>>>>>>>>> --negotiate -u :
>>>>>>>>>>> --cacert /etc/ipa/ca.crt -d
>>>>>>>>>>> '{"method":"i18n_messages","params":[[],{}],"id":0}' -X POST
>>>>>>>>>>> https://`hostname`/ipa/json
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good catch! The i18n_messages plugin already defines a "messages"
>>>>>>>>>> output. When I renamed this from "warnings" to "messages" I forgot to
>>>>>>>>>> check for clashes.
>>>>>>>>>> Since i18n_messages is an internal command only used by the Web UI, we
>>>>>>>>>> can rename its output to "texts" without breaking compatibility.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm attaching a preliminary fix (for both backend and UI), but
>>>>>>>>>> hopefully
>>>>>>>>>> it won't be necessary, see below.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am also not sure I like the requirement of a specific version
>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>> always passed. I would prefer that missing version option would mean
>>>>>>>>>>> "I use the
>>>>>>>>>>> most recent version of API" instead - it would make the custom
>>>>>>>>>>> JSONRPC/XMLRPC
>>>>>>>>>>> calls easier to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But since the version option was not being sent for some commands, we
>>>>>>>>>>> may not
>>>>>>>>>>> have a choice anyway if we do not want to break old clients in
>>>>>>>>>>> case we
>>>>>>>>>>> add some
>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities to these commands.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see three other options, all worse:
>>>>>>>>>> - Do not use capabilities for the affected commands, meaning no new
>>>>>>>>>> functionality can be added to them (and by extension, no new
>>>>>>>>>> functionality common to all commands can be added).
>>>>>>>>>> - Treat a missing version as the current version
>>>>>>>>>> - Break backwards compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And one possibly better (thanks to Petr¹ and Martin for opening my
>>>>>>>>>> eyes
>>>>>>>>>> off-list!):
>>>>>>>>>> - Deprecate XML-RPC. All XML-RPC requests would be pinned to current
>>>>>>>>>> version (2.47). Capabilities/messages would only apply to JSON-RPC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This would also allow us to solve the above name-clashing problem
>>>>>>>>>> elegantly. Here is a reminder of what a JSON response looks like:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> "error": null,
>>>>>>>>>> "id": 0,
>>>>>>>>>> "principal": "admin at IDM.LAB.BOS.REDHAT.COM",
>>>>>>>>>> "result": {
>>>>>>>>>> "summary": "IPA server version 3.1.0GIT2e4bd02. API version
>>>>>>>>>> 2.47"
>>>>>>>>>> },
>>>>>>>>>> "version": "3.1.0GIT2e4bd02"
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A XML-RPC response only contains the "result" part of that.
>>>>>>>>>> So with JSON, we can put the messages in the top level, which is much
>>>>>>>>>> better design.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Custom info in the "top level" seems to be a violation of the JSON-RPC
>>>>>>>> spec. I'd rather not do more of those, so I'm withdrawing this idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> XML-RPC sucks in other ways too. We already have a workaround for its
>>>>>>>>>> inability to attach extra info to errors (commit
>>>>>>>>>> 88262a75ffe7a25640333dcc4da2100830cae821, Add instructions support to
>>>>>>>>>> PublicError).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've opened a RFC here: https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3299.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1, XML-RPC sucks. This should have been done a long time ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Honza
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are new patches.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> XML-RPC requests with missing version are assumed to be old (the version
>>>>>>>> before capabilities are introduced, 2.47). This takes care of backcompat
>>>>>>>> with clients with bug 3294.
>>>>>>>> JSON-RPC requests with missing version are assumed to be testing calls
>>>>>>>> (e.g. curl), they get behavior of the latest version but also a warning.
>>>>>>>> I've also added this info to the design doc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It turns out that these patches don't depend on whether our client uses
>>>>>>>> XML-RPC or JSON-RPC. If/when it supports both, I'll be able to add some
>>>>>>>> extra unit tests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patch 106 had a minor conflict with master, attaching fixed version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patches 106 & 115 need an API version bump.
>>>>>> I also noticed that `makeapi --validate` wasn't checking capabilities
>>>>>> properly. Fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rebasing patch 104 to current master.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patch 104 and 106 needs a rebase.
>>>>
>>>> Generally I think this patchset is OK and we will need it as a foundation for
>>>> other features.
>>>>
>>>> I may have done my custom rebasing wrong, but my WebUI stopped working with
>>>> these patches. I see this in error_log:
>>>>
>>>> [Wed Feb 20 10:38:22.351845 2013] [auth_kerb:error] [pid 22172] [client
>>>> 10.34.4.72:40777] gss_display_name() failed: A required input
>>>> parameter could not be read: An invalid name was supplied (, Unknown error),
>>>> referer: https://vm-037.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com/ipa/ui/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also saw one failed test case:
>>>> ======================================================================
>>>> FAIL: Try user_show with no version
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/case.py", line 197, in runTest
>>>> self.test(*self.arg)
>>>> File "/root/freeipa-master/tests/test_xmlrpc/test_user_plugin.py", line
>>>> 1760,
>>>> in test_user_show_without_version
>>>> assert res['messages'] == (expected_message.to_dict(), )
>>>> AssertionError
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here are the rebased patches.
>>> Please test from a clean tree, the UI stopped working here when I had some
>>> stale files around.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, everything looks good except our first message (VersionMissing) which
>> is sent when I run commands via JSON-RPC which do not have any version
>> attached. Now, I get this error:
>>
>> "messages": [
>> {
>> "code": 13001,
>> "message": "API Version number was not sent. Assuming client
>> version 2.47. Current API version is 2.53",
>> "name": "VersionMissing",
>> "type": "warning"
>> }
>> ],
>>
>> There are 2 issues with this message wording:
>> 1) 2.47 is deprecated, I assume you wanted VERSION_WITHOUT_CAPABILITIES
>> 2) We assume API_VERSION (current API version) and not
>> VERSION_WITHOUT_CAPABILITIES
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
> Fixed, thanks for the catch.
>
Thanks. Pushed all 4 patches to master, ipa-3-1.
Martin
More information about the Freeipa-devel
mailing list