Bug 1384484
Summary: | Some resource agents' metadata do not conform to the xml schema | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Reporter: | Tomas Jelinek <tojeline> |
Component: | pacemaker | Assignee: | Ken Gaillot <kgaillot> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | cluster-qe <cluster-qe> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 8.0 | CC: | cluster-maint, mgrac, oalbrigt |
Target Milestone: | pre-dev-freeze | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2020-10-13 21:56:43 UTC | Type: | Enhancement |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Tomas Jelinek
2016-10-13 11:38:43 UTC
This is a reflection of the state of the OCF standard. The standard was created in 2002 and the group that originally maintained it disbanded, so software packages (including pacemaker) have added custom extensions to it over the years. The proper solution to this issue would be for pacemaker to document its extended schema, and make the ocf:pacemaker resource agents claim adherence to that. (I wouldn't be surprised if there are also a few errors that need to be corrected, but that would the most important thing.) There is some upstream discussion about adopting the OCF standard under the banner of ClusterLabs, and updating it. That would help this issue, but pacemaker would likely still need extensions as experimental features were trialed before being adopted in the standard, so a documented extension schema could still be worthwhile. Also, fence agents are not covered by the OCF resource agent standard. They follow a very similar format, but at least the ones I've looked at don't claim adherence to the DTD, and none meet the standard (fence agents support different actions than resource agents, among other differences). The effort to update the OCF standard will likely incorporate fence agents. @Ken: Can you take a look at our schema: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/blob/master/fence/agents/lib/metadata.rng or example at: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/blob/master/tests/data/metadata/fence_apc.xml - I'm mostly interested on pieces that you are missing. I'm aware that there is a ton of tags that are not important for resource agents as they support cmdline interface as much as fence agents. Fence agents metadata obtained from pacemaker do not conform to the schema shipped with fence agents due to extra actions added by pacemaker in the stonith_api_device_metadata function in the st_client.c file: [root@rh72-node1:~]# crm_resource --show-metadata stonith:fence_apc > fence_apc.xml [root@rh72-node1:~]# jing /usr/share/cluster/relaxng/metadata.rng fence_apc.xml /root/fence_apc.xml:194:40: error: attribute "timeout" not allowed here; expected attribute "automatic" or "on_target" /root/fence_apc.xml:195:41: error: attribute "timeout" not allowed here; expected attribute "automatic" or "on_target" [root@rh72-node1:~]# sed -n 190,200p fence_apc.xml <action name="list"/> <action name="list-status"/> <action name="monitor"/> <action name="metadata"/> <action name="stop" timeout="20s"/> <action name="start" timeout="20s"/> </actions> </resource-agent> Unless there's a pressing reason to do this sooner, I'd rather defer this until the OCF standard has been updated upstream. We can bring up these differences as part of that discussion, and address whatever is left after that effort is done. As I see it this should be definitely tightly connected to the OCF standard update process which is currently ongoing upstream. There is no urgent need from pcs side. OCF update will not be in the 7.4 timeframe OCF standard update is not on the horizon at this moment, bumping again Sadly, the planned updates to the OCF standard have repeatedly been pushed back. An upstream bug has been filed for this issue, and this report will be closed. If the standard is updated, and developer time becomes available to work on the pacemaker side, we can reopen this. |