v2 reports instance-uuid as an option to image create
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Glance |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Kairat Kushaev | ||
Glance Client |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Kairat Kushaev |
Bug Description
Users are confused why this command isn't working:
$ glance image-create --instance-uuid d098a027-
+-----
| Property | Value |
+-----
| checksum | None |
| container_format | None |
| created_at | 2015-09-
| disk_format | None |
| id | xxx |
| instance_uuid | d098a027-
| min_disk | 0 |
| min_ram | 0 |
| name | via glance image-create 1 |
| owner | xxx |
| protected | False |
| size | None |
| status | queued |
| tags | [] |
| updated_at | 2015-09-
| virtual_size | None |
| visibility | private |
+-----
Note 'instance_uuid d098a027-
It is reported/explained in the help:
$ glance help image-create
usage: glance image-create [--architecture <ARCHITECTURE>]
Optional arguments:
--architecture <ARCHITECTURE>
--protected [True|False]
--name <NAME> Descriptive name for the image
--instance-uuid <INSTANCE_UUID>
Obviously it's not supported and should be removed from the help.
'v1' behaves as expected
$ glance --os-image-
usage: glance [--version] [-d] [-v] [--get-schema] [--timeout TIMEOUT]
glance: error: unrecognized arguments: --instance-uuid d098a027-
Changed in python-glanceclient: | |
assignee: | nobody → Kairat Kushaev (kkushaev) |
importance: | Undecided → Medium |
status: | New → Confirmed |
Changed in glance: | |
status: | New → Confirmed |
assignee: | nobody → Kairat Kushaev (kkushaev) |
importance: | Undecided → Medium |
I think we can enhance the description of the parameter to explain users that this option just stores instance_uuid but it doesn't use the instance as the basis for the image. AFAIU, that's the goal of the field.
So I think it is more reasonable because instance_uuid is part of image schema and can be used by some users. I would like to avoid partial fix when we will delete the description from the help but instance_uuid will be part of the schema. I will propose the fix soon, so we can also discuss this in gerrit.