On Wednesday 09 Apr 2014 14:11:32 you wrote:
> allenap: rvba: I don’t know what Julian said, but I’m not thrilled
> about adding it either. It depends somewhat on how you see
> maas-test. I see it as a front-end for non-MAAS users to test
> hardware with MAAS. As such, I don’t think asking them to
> provide config files is good UI.
This is the nub of it, yes.
bootresources.yaml is a shit user-facing interface, I mean really shit. I was
rather frustrated to see the simplestreams filter options appearing in a
config file in the original script work, but that was out of our hands as it
turns out.
We need to be moving as much of the maas-test functionality as possible over
to maas itself so that maas-test ends up being a wrapper to drive some tests
inside maas.
When we have an API/UI to control which boot resources are required (which we
will design with maas-test in mind) then this all becomes much easier.
On Wednesday 09 Apr 2014 14:11:32 you wrote:
> allenap: rvba: I don’t know what Julian said, but I’m not thrilled
> about adding it either. It depends somewhat on how you see
> maas-test. I see it as a front-end for non-MAAS users to test
> hardware with MAAS. As such, I don’t think asking them to
> provide config files is good UI.
This is the nub of it, yes.
bootresources.yaml is a shit user-facing interface, I mean really shit. I was
rather frustrated to see the simplestreams filter options appearing in a
config file in the original script work, but that was out of our hands as it
turns out.
We need to be moving as much of the maas-test functionality as possible over
to maas itself so that maas-test ends up being a wrapper to drive some tests
inside maas.
When we have an API/UI to control which boot resources are required (which we
will design with maas-test in mind) then this all becomes much easier.