Add specs hierarchy into refstack-client
Add specs folder, the readme with flow instructions and a spec example into refstack-client in order to track proposed and implemented changes. Change-Id: I3ec0b4b03f641d461021dc8dbbf6124aa0bd585b
This commit is contained in:
Luz Cazares
parent
7523bc5dbc
commit
5177431755
@ -2,12 +2,19 @@ Welcome to refstack-client's documentation!
|
||||
===========================================
|
||||
|
||||
Contents:
|
||||
-----------
|
||||
|
||||
.. toctree::
|
||||
:maxdepth: 2
|
||||
:maxdepth: 4
|
||||
:glob:
|
||||
|
||||
readme
|
||||
|
||||
specs/newton/approved/*
|
||||
|
||||
specs/newton/implemented/*
|
||||
|
||||
Indices and tables
|
||||
==================
|
||||
|
||||
* :ref:`search`
|
||||
|
||||
1
doc/source/specs
Symbolic link
1
doc/source/specs
Symbolic link
@ -0,0 +1 @@
|
||||
../../specs/
|
||||
54
specs/README.rst
Normal file
54
specs/README.rst
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
=======================
|
||||
Refstack-Client Specifications
|
||||
=======================
|
||||
|
||||
This folder is used to hold design specifications for additions
|
||||
to the refstack-client project. Reviews of the specs are done in gerrit, using a
|
||||
similar workflow to how we review and merge changes to the code itself.
|
||||
|
||||
The layout of this folder is as follows::
|
||||
|
||||
specs/<release>/
|
||||
specs/<release>/approved
|
||||
specs/<release>/implemented
|
||||
|
||||
The lifecycle of a specification
|
||||
--------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Specifications are proposed by adding an .rst file to the
|
||||
``specs/<release>/approved`` directory and posting it for review. You can
|
||||
find an example specification in ``/specs/template.rst``.
|
||||
|
||||
Once a specification has been fully implemented, meaning a patch has landed,
|
||||
it will be moved to the ``implemented`` directory and the corresponding
|
||||
blueprint will be marked as complete.
|
||||
|
||||
`Specifications are only approved for a single release`. If a specification
|
||||
was previously approved but not implemented (or not completely implemented),
|
||||
then the specification needs to be re-proposed by copying (not move) it to
|
||||
the right directory for the current release.
|
||||
|
||||
Previously approved specifications
|
||||
----------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
The refstack-client specs directory was created during the Newton cycle.
|
||||
Therefore, the specs approved and implemented prior to the Newton cycle will
|
||||
be saved in the ``RefStack`` project.
|
||||
|
||||
Others
|
||||
------
|
||||
|
||||
Please note, Launchpad blueprints are still used for tracking the status of the
|
||||
blueprints. For more information, see::
|
||||
|
||||
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/refstack
|
||||
|
||||
For more information about working with gerrit, see::
|
||||
|
||||
http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html#development-workflow
|
||||
|
||||
To validate that the specification is syntactically correct (i.e. get more
|
||||
confidence in the Jenkins result), please execute the following command::
|
||||
|
||||
$ tox -e docs
|
||||
307
specs/template.rst
Normal file
307
specs/template.rst
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,307 @@
|
||||
==========================================
|
||||
Example Spec - The title of your blueprint
|
||||
==========================================
|
||||
|
||||
Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:
|
||||
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/refstack/+spec/example
|
||||
|
||||
Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing anything? A single paragraph of
|
||||
prose that operators can understand.
|
||||
|
||||
Some notes about using this template:
|
||||
|
||||
* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
|
||||
|
||||
* Please wrap text at 80 columns.
|
||||
|
||||
* The filename in the git repository should match the launchpad URL, for
|
||||
example a URL of:
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/refstack/+spec/awesome-thing
|
||||
should be named awesome-thing.rst
|
||||
|
||||
* Please do not delete any of the sections in this template. If you have
|
||||
nothing to say for a whole section, just write: None
|
||||
|
||||
* For help with syntax, see http://sphinx-doc.org/rest.html
|
||||
|
||||
* To test out your formatting, build the docs using tox, or see:
|
||||
http://rst.ninjs.org
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Problem description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
A detailed description of the problem:
|
||||
|
||||
* For a new feature this might be use cases. Ensure you are clear about the
|
||||
actors in each use case: End User vs Deployer
|
||||
|
||||
* For a major reworking of something existing it would describe the
|
||||
problems in that feature that are being addressed.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
Here is where you cover the change you propose to make in detail. How do you
|
||||
propose to solve this problem?
|
||||
|
||||
If this is one part of a larger effort make it clear where this piece ends. In
|
||||
other words, what's the scope of this effort?
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
What other ways could we do this thing? Why aren't we using those? This doesn't
|
||||
have to be a full literature review, but it should demonstrate that thought has
|
||||
been put into why the proposed solution is an appropriate one.
|
||||
|
||||
Data model impact
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Changes which require modifications to the data model often have a wider impact
|
||||
on the system. The community often has strong opinions on how the data model
|
||||
should be evolved, from both a functional and performance perspective. It is
|
||||
therefore important to capture and gain agreement as early as possible on any
|
||||
proposed changes to the data model.
|
||||
|
||||
Questions which need to be addressed by this section include:
|
||||
|
||||
* What new data objects and/or database schema changes is this going to require?
|
||||
|
||||
* What database migrations will accompany this change.
|
||||
|
||||
* How will the initial set of new data objects be generated, for example if you
|
||||
need to take into account existing instances, or modify other existing data
|
||||
describe how that will work.
|
||||
|
||||
REST API impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Each API method which is either added or changed should have the following
|
||||
|
||||
* Specification for the method
|
||||
|
||||
* A description of what the method does suitable for use in
|
||||
user documentation
|
||||
|
||||
* Method type (POST/PUT/GET/DELETE)
|
||||
|
||||
* Normal http response code(s)
|
||||
|
||||
* Expected error http response code(s)
|
||||
|
||||
* A description for each possible error code should be included
|
||||
describing semantic errors which can cause it such as
|
||||
inconsistent parameters supplied to the method, or when an
|
||||
instance is not in an appropriate state for the request to
|
||||
succeed. Errors caused by syntactic problems covered by the JSON
|
||||
schema defintion do not need to be included.
|
||||
|
||||
* URL for the resource
|
||||
|
||||
* Parameters which can be passed via the url
|
||||
|
||||
* JSON schema definition for the body data if allowed
|
||||
|
||||
* JSON schema definition for the response data if any
|
||||
|
||||
* Example use case including typical API samples for both data supplied
|
||||
by the caller and the response
|
||||
|
||||
* Discuss any policy changes, and discuss what things a deployer needs to
|
||||
think about when defining their policy.
|
||||
|
||||
Example JSON schema definitions can be found in the Nova tree
|
||||
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/api/openstack/compute/schemas/v3
|
||||
|
||||
Note that the schema should be defined as restrictively as
|
||||
possible. Parameters which are required should be marked as such and
|
||||
only under exceptional circumstances should additional parameters
|
||||
which are not defined in the schema be permitted (eg
|
||||
additionaProperties should be False).
|
||||
|
||||
Reuse of existing predefined parameter types such as regexps for
|
||||
passwords and user defined names is highly encouraged.
|
||||
|
||||
Security impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe any potential security impact on the system. Some of the items to
|
||||
consider include:
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change touch sensitive data such as tokens, keys, or user data?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change alter the API in a way that may impact security, such as
|
||||
a new way to access sensitive information or a new way to login?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change involve cryptography or hashing?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change require the use of sudo or any elevated privileges?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change involve using or parsing user-provided data? This could
|
||||
be directly at the API level or indirectly such as changes to a cache layer.
|
||||
|
||||
* Can this change enable a resource exhaustion attack, such as allowing a
|
||||
single API interaction to consume significant server resources? Some examples
|
||||
of this include launching subprocesses for each connection, or entity
|
||||
expansion attacks in XML.
|
||||
|
||||
For more detailed guidance, please see the OpenStack Security Guidelines as
|
||||
a reference (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Security/Guidelines). These
|
||||
guidelines are a work in progress and are designed to help you identify
|
||||
security best practices. For further information, feel free to reach out
|
||||
to the OpenStack Security Group at openstack-security@lists.openstack.org.
|
||||
|
||||
Notifications impact
|
||||
--------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Please specify any changes to notifications. Be that an extra notification,
|
||||
changes to an existing notification, or removing a notification.
|
||||
|
||||
Other end user impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Aside from the API, are there other ways a user will interact with this feature?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change have an impact on python-novaclient? What does the user
|
||||
interface there look like?
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe any potential performance impact on the system, for example
|
||||
how often will new code be called, and is there a major change to the calling
|
||||
pattern of existing code.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples of things to consider here include:
|
||||
|
||||
* A periodic task might look like a small addition but if it calls conductor or
|
||||
another service the load is multiplied by the number of nodes in the system.
|
||||
|
||||
* Scheduler filters get called once per host for every instance being created, so
|
||||
any latency they introduce is linear with the size of the system.
|
||||
|
||||
* A small change in a utility function or a commonly used decorator can have a
|
||||
large impacts on performance.
|
||||
|
||||
* Calls which result in a database queries (whether direct or via conductor) can
|
||||
have a profound impact on performance when called in critical sections of the
|
||||
code.
|
||||
|
||||
* Will the change include any locking, and if so what considerations are there on
|
||||
holding the lock?
|
||||
|
||||
Other deployer impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Discuss things that will affect how you deploy and configure OpenStack
|
||||
that have not already been mentioned, such as:
|
||||
|
||||
* What config options are being added? Should they be more generic than
|
||||
proposed (for example a flag that other hypervisor drivers might want to
|
||||
implement as well)? Are the default values ones which will work well in
|
||||
real deployments?
|
||||
|
||||
* Is this a change that takes immediate effect after its merged, or is it
|
||||
something that has to be explicitly enabled?
|
||||
|
||||
* If this change is a new binary, how would it be deployed?
|
||||
|
||||
* Please state anything that those doing continuous deployment, or those
|
||||
upgrading from the previous release, need to be aware of. Also describe
|
||||
any plans to deprecate configuration values or features. For example, if we
|
||||
change the directory name that instances are stored in, how do we handle
|
||||
instance directories created before the change landed? Do we move them? Do
|
||||
we have a special case in the code? Do we assume that the operator will
|
||||
recreate all the instances in their cloud?
|
||||
|
||||
Developer impact
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Discuss things that will affect other developers working on OpenStack,
|
||||
such as:
|
||||
|
||||
* If the blueprint proposes a change to the driver API, discussion of how
|
||||
other hypervisors would implement the feature is required.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
||||
Assignee(s)
|
||||
-----------
|
||||
|
||||
Who is leading the writing of the code? Or is this a blueprint where you're
|
||||
throwing it out there to see who picks it up?
|
||||
|
||||
If more than one person is working on the implementation, please designate the
|
||||
primary author and contact.
|
||||
|
||||
Primary assignee:
|
||||
<launchpad-id or None>
|
||||
|
||||
Other contributors:
|
||||
<launchpad-id or None>
|
||||
|
||||
Work Items
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
Work items or tasks -- break the feature up into the things that need to be
|
||||
done to implement it. Those parts might end up being done by different people,
|
||||
but we're mostly trying to understand the timeline for implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Dependencies
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
* Include specific references to specs and/or blueprints in nova, or in other
|
||||
projects, that this one either depends on or is related to.
|
||||
|
||||
* If this requires functionality of another project that is not currently used
|
||||
by Nova (such as the glance v2 API when we previously only required v1),
|
||||
document that fact.
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this feature require any new library dependencies or code otherwise not
|
||||
included in OpenStack? Or does it depend on a specific version of library?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Testing
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Please discuss how the change will be tested. We especially want to know what
|
||||
tempest tests will be added. It is assumed that unit test coverage will be
|
||||
added so that doesn't need to be mentioned explicitly, but discussion of why
|
||||
you think unit tests are sufficient and we don't need to add more tempest
|
||||
tests would need to be included.
|
||||
|
||||
Is this untestable in gate given current limitations (specific hardware /
|
||||
software configurations available)? If so, are there mitigation plans (3rd
|
||||
party testing, gate enhancements, etc).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
What is the impact on the docs team of this change? Some changes might require
|
||||
donating resources to the docs team to have the documentation updated. Don't
|
||||
repeat details discussed above, but please reference them here.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
Please add any useful references here. You are not required to have any
|
||||
reference. Moreover, this specification should still make sense when your
|
||||
references are unavailable. Examples of what you could include are:
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to mailing list or IRC discussions
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to notes from a summit session
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to relevant research, if appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
* Related specifications as appropriate (e.g. if it's an EC2 thing, link the EC2 docs)
|
||||
|
||||
* Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user