New Feature to create a vm in a specific subnet

[FernandoOjeda]

New Feature to create a vm in a specific subnet: #921

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.3%) to 88.787% when pulling 488979b on FernandoOjeda:fo_vlan_subnet into 6332ffe on softlayer:master.

[allmightyspiff]

Also, add a test for _create_network_components in managers/vs.py to test all the if cases

[allmightyspiff]

Was there any reason for moving these lines to their own function?

[FernandoOjeda]

The problem was that it exceeded the maximum number of branches in the method and I only made a refactor of the for cycle in another method using the IDE's refactor options.

[allmightyspiff]

I don't like functions that modify the data that gets passed in. this function should return keys instead of modifying the array that gets passed in.

[allmightyspiff]

Try something like this instead.

parameters = {}
if private_vlan:
    parameters['primaryBackendNetworkComponent'] = { "networkVlan": {"id": int(private_vlan)}}
if public_vlan:
   parameters['primaryNetworkComponent'] =  { "networkVlan": {"id": int(public_vlan)}}
if public_subnet:
   if public_vlan is None:
       throw Excetions("You need to specify a public_vlan with public_subnet") 
   parameters['primaryNetworkComponent']['networkVlan]['primarySubnet'] = {'id' : int(public_subnet)}
if private_subnet:
   if private_vlan is None:
       throw Excetions("You need to specify a private_vlan with private_subnet") 
   parameters['primaryBackendNetworkComponent']['networkVlan]['primarySubnet'] = {'id' : int(private_subnet)}

[FernandoOjeda]

I tried to implement the switcher option for this method, but we get the ¨args¨ parameter, it's not a specific data. I was implementing like this:

switcher = {
    args.get('san'): attribute_san(args, data),
    args.get('os'): attribute_os(args, data),
    args.get('image'): attribute_image(args, client, data),
    args.get('datacenter'): attribute_datacenter(args, data),
    args.get('network'): attribute_network(args, data),
    args.get('postinstall'): attribute_postinstall(args, data),
    args.get('key'): attribute_key(args, client, data),
    args.get('vlan_public'): attribute_vlan_public(args, data),
    args.get('vlan_private'): attribute_vlan_private(args, data),
    args.get('subnet_public'): attribute_subnet_public(args, data),
    args.get('subnet_private'): attribute_subnet_private(args, data),
    args.get('public_security_group'): attribute_public_security_group(args, data),
    args.get('private_security_group'): attribute_private_security_group(args, data),
    args.get('tag'): attribute_tag(args, data),
    args.get('host_id'): attribute_host_id(args, data),
}

return data

def attribute_host_id(args, data):
data['host_id'] = args['host_id']

def attribute_tag(args, data):
data['tags'] = ','.join(args['tag'])

def attribute_private_security_group(args, data):
priv_groups = args.get('private_security_group')
data['private_security_groups'] = [group for group in priv_groups]
..........................

In this case the attribute switches will not be use, because in each method each data from args will be added to the data attribute.
That's why I used the first option you suggested.

[allmightyspiff]

Before I merge this, can you test to make sure it actually provisions a VSI on the correct public and private subnets.

Thanks

[FernandoOjeda]

Yes, it is working well.