In Python 2, dict.items(), dict.keys(), and dict.values() returned a
list. dict.iteritems(), dict.iterkeys(), and dict.itervalues() returned
an iterator.
As of Python 3, dict.iteritems(), dict.itervalues(), and dict.iterkeys()
are gone. items(), keys(), and values() now return an iterator.
In the case where we want an iterator, we now use the six.iter*()
helpers. If we want a list, we explicitly create a list from the
iterator.
Signed-off-by: Russell Bryant <russell@ovn.org>
Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org>
Also, add some clarifications relative to RFC 7047 to ovsdb-server(1).
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <blp@nicira.com>
Acked-by: Justin Pettit <jpettit@nicira.com>
Replaced all instances of Nicira Networks(, Inc) to Nicira, Inc.
Feature #10593
Signed-off-by: Raju Subramanian <rsubramanian@nicira.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <blp@nicira.com>
This patch does minor style cleanups to the code in the python and
tests directory. There's other code floating around that could use
similar treatment, but updating it is not convenient at the moment.
Until now, the Python bindings for OVSDB have not supported writing to the
database. Instead, writes had to be done with "ovs-vsctl" subprocesses.
This commit adds write support and brings the Python bindings in line with
the C bindings.
This commit deletes the Python-specific IDL tests in favor of using the
same tests as the C version of the IDL, which now pass with both
implementations.
This commit updates the two users of the Python IDL to use the new write
support. I tested this updates only by writing unit tests for them,
which appear in upcoming commits.
The JSON parser in OVS always yields unicode strings and lists, never
non-unicode strings or tuples, but it's easy to create them when building
JSON elsewhere, so accept both forms.
These initial bindings pass a few hundred of the corresponding tests
for C implementations of various bits of the Open vSwitch library API.
The poorest part of them is actually the Python IDL interface in
ovs.db.idl, which has not received enough attention yet. It appears
to work, but it doesn't yet support writes (transactions) and it is
difficult to use. I hope to improve it as it becomes clear what
semantics Python applications actually want from an IDL.
