Am 30.11.18 um 14:34 schrieb Sage Weil: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Sebastian Wagner wrote: >> All, >> >> looks like the architecture of the mgr supporting independent modules >> was quite successful :-). >> >> In recent times, I'm seeing an increasing amount of coped copied from >> other mgr modules. This has the obvious downside that a fix in one >> module leaves other modules unfixed. Like for example PR #25337. >> >> Running `pylint --disable=all --enable=duplicate-code *` within >> pybind/mgr reveals, in my opinion, too many duplicates. One also have to >> count the places where code was semantically copied (or inspired by). >> >> One obvious reason is that the mgr modules are prone to replicating >> code, as each module is build by many distinct teams for a specific and >> independent use case. Also, testing other affected modules can be quite >> challenging. >> >> Therefor, I'd like to raise awareness. Maybe, we can reduce copies in >> the future. > > My main question is what our strategy should be. Where should shared code > live? Should we transplant it all into mgr_module.py, or into util.py or > similar in the pybind/mgr directory? pybind/mgr/util.py sounds good. To me, mgr_module.py sounds like a Python module meant to contain the API to C++. > > Current example: I'm using format_bytes() from the status module from the > pg_autoscaler module via remote(), which is probably not ideal! Perfect example! We have a very similar function in /src/ceph-volume/ceph_volume/util/disk.py called human_readable_size. We don't have any common place for shared Python code right now. > > s > >
