https://jira.opendaylight.org This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 8.20.10 820010 22-06-2022 https://jira.opendaylight.org/browse/NEUTRON-122 neutron <p>When listening to changes in DS, "put" creates/replaces data. When changing properties of an object in WriteTransaction by using "put", various listener implementations expect data modification and not creation/replacement.</p> <p>E.g. when a class implements listening to changes in DS by extending DataTreeChangeListener, modification type WRITE is received when modifying existing data in transactions by "put". However, by using "merge" received modification type is SUBTREE_MODIFIED, which is a proper consequence.</p> <p>Operating System: All<br/> Platform: All</p> NEUTRON-122

Updated objects should not be rewritten in WriteTransaction

Bug Resolved Won't Do Tomas Cechvala Tomas Cechvala Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:45:37 +0000 Tue, 3 May 2016 08:43:40 +0000 Tue, 3 May 2016 08:43:40 +0000 Multiple transcriber 0 1 <p>Proposed patches for<br/> beryllium <a href="https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/37653/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/37653/</a><br/> boron <a href="https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/37654/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/37654/</a></p> <p>Hello Tomas, thank you for reporting this.</p> <p>Can you please clarify the affected project? Group Based Policy?</p> <p>Given it is tested with other openstack providers, I hesitate to apply the patch<br/> to the change behavior. Do you have any idea of how to affect the existing project?</p> <p>Do you need this for Beryllium branch?<br/> Although maybe we can address issues by your patch in master branch, we shouldn't apply (potential big) behavior change to stable branch.</p> <p>Hello Isaku,</p> <p>thank you for responding on this.</p> <p>The affected project is Group Based Policy. You are right, we don't need a patch for this in beryllium. I just abandoned it. <a href="https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/37653/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/37653/</a></p> <p>In other projects, e.g. OVSDB, it seems to me that they also unintentionally process updates as creations. The fix would probably affect their update implementations, which have probably never run before so maybe they should be notified about this.</p> <p>I suppose ovsdb/netvirt handles it intentionally.<br/> Given that other openstack service providers work with the current code,<br/> can you please elaborate the requirement by group based policy?<br/> i.e. the reason why you came up with the patch.</p> <p>Actually simple merge doesn't work because some model uses list or leaf-list.<br/> e.g. port::fixed-ip, port::securitygroupos.<br/> When updating those list, they are overwrited. So merge doesn't work for such lists.</p> <p>Lists (containers too) are overriden when we "put" them not "merge" them into transaction.</p> <p>If you do put on a subnode, e.g fixed-ips in port, modification type for port will be SUBTREE_MODIFIED and for fixed-ips WRITE.</p> <p>When using put on entire node (list or container), not just subnodes, WRITE will be the data change event even though we expect modification of the object (e.g changing device owner on a port when attaching it to a router).</p> <p>Merge should not break anything, when data don't exist, WRITE should be received.</p> <p>After a brief team discussion I became convinced that using merge is not a good approach because it does not have any affect when removing sub-nodes.<br/> We are going to have a look at original data and modified data to see if objects are updated or created.</p> Development External issue ID 5734 External issue URL Issue Type ODL SR Target Milestone Priority Rank 0|i02uuf: