474 lines
14 KiB
ReStructuredText
474 lines
14 KiB
ReStructuredText
..
|
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
|
License.
|
|
|
|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
|
|
|
==========================================
|
|
Example Spec - The title of your blueprint
|
|
==========================================
|
|
|
|
Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:
|
|
|
|
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/example
|
|
|
|
Introduction paragraph -- why is it necessary to do anything?
|
|
A single paragraph of prose that reviewers can understand.
|
|
|
|
Some notes about using this template:
|
|
|
|
* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
|
|
|
|
* Please wrap text at 79 columns.
|
|
|
|
* The spec should be gender neutral and written in the third person aspect
|
|
|
|
* The filename in the git repository should match the launchpad URL, for
|
|
example a URL of: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+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
|
|
|
|
* If you would like to provide a diagram with your spec, ASCII diagrams are
|
|
required. http://asciiflow.com/ is a very nice tool to assist with making
|
|
ASCII diagrams. The reason for this is that the tool used to review specs is
|
|
based purely on plain text. Plain text will allow review to proceed without
|
|
having to look at additional files which can not be viewed in Gerrit. It
|
|
will also allow in-line feedback on the diagram itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
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 Deploy engineer
|
|
|
|
* For a major reworking of something existing it would describe the
|
|
problems in that feature that are being addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------
|
|
Proposed changes
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
Web UI
|
|
======
|
|
|
|
If the proposed changes require changing the web UI please describe in details:
|
|
|
|
* How existing controls or representation is going to be changed
|
|
|
|
* What changes are required for underlying engines
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nailgun
|
|
=======
|
|
|
|
General changes to the architecture, tasks and encapsulated business logic
|
|
should be described here.
|
|
|
|
Data model
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
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 definition 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 deploy engineer needs
|
|
to think about when defining their policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orchestration
|
|
=============
|
|
|
|
General changes to the logic of orchestration should be described in details
|
|
in this section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RPC Protocol
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
RPC protocol is another crucial part of inter-component communication in Fuel.
|
|
Thus it's very important to describe in details at least the following:
|
|
|
|
* How messaging between Nailgun and Astute will be changed in order to
|
|
implement this specification.
|
|
|
|
* What input data is required and what format of results should be expected
|
|
|
|
* If changes assume performing operations of nodes, a description of messaging
|
|
protocol, input and output data should be also described.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Client
|
|
===========
|
|
|
|
Fuel Client is a tiny but important part of the ecosystem. The most important
|
|
is that it is used by other people as a CLI tool and as a library.
|
|
|
|
This section should describe whether there are any changes to:
|
|
|
|
* HTTP client and library
|
|
|
|
* CLI parser, commands and renderer
|
|
|
|
* Environment
|
|
|
|
It's important to describe the above-mentioned in details so it can be fit
|
|
into both user's and developer's manuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plugins
|
|
=======
|
|
|
|
Plugins are ofter made by third-party teams. Please describe how these changes
|
|
will affect the plugin framework. Every new feature should determine how it
|
|
interacts with the plugin framework and if it should be exposed to plugins and
|
|
how that will work:
|
|
|
|
* Should plugins be able to interact with the feature?
|
|
|
|
* How will plugins be able to interact with this feature?
|
|
|
|
* There is something that should be changed in existing plugins to be
|
|
compatible with the proposed changes
|
|
|
|
* The proposed changes enable or disable something for new plugins
|
|
|
|
This section should be also described in details and then be put into the
|
|
developer's manual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Library
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
Are some changes required to Fuel Library? Please describe in details:
|
|
|
|
* Changes to Puppet manifests
|
|
|
|
* Supporting scripts
|
|
|
|
* Components packaging
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
Alternatives
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
What are other ways of achieving the same results? Why aren't they followed?
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------
|
|
Upgrade impact
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
If this change set concerns any kind of upgrade process, describe how it is
|
|
supposed to deal with that stuff. For example, Fuel currently supports
|
|
upgrading of master node, so it is necessary to describe whether this patch
|
|
set contradicts upgrade process itself or any supported working feature that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------
|
|
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-fuelclient? 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------
|
|
Deployment impact
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
Discuss things that will affect how you deploy and configure Fuel
|
|
that have not already been mentioned, such as:
|
|
|
|
* What configuration options are being added? Should they be more generic than
|
|
proposed? 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 a
|
|
directory with instances changes its name, how are instance directories
|
|
created before the change handled? Are they get moved them? Is there
|
|
a special case in the code? Is it assumed that operators will
|
|
recreate all the instances in their cloud?
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------
|
|
Developer impact
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
Discuss things that will affect other developers working on Fuel,
|
|
such as:
|
|
|
|
* If the blueprint proposes a change to the driver API, discussion of how
|
|
drivers would implement the feature is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------
|
|
Infrastructure impact
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
Explain what changes in project infrastructure will be required to support the
|
|
proposed change. Consider the following:
|
|
|
|
* Will it increase the load on CI infrastructure by making build or test jobs
|
|
consume more CPU, network, or storage capacity? Will it increase the number
|
|
of scheduled jobs?
|
|
|
|
* Will it require new workflows or changes in existing workflows implemented in
|
|
CI, packaging, source code management, code review, or software artifact
|
|
publishing tools?
|
|
|
|
* Will it require new or upgraded tools or services to be deployed on project
|
|
infrastructure?
|
|
|
|
* Will it require new types of Jenkins jobs?
|
|
|
|
* Will it affect git branch management strategies?
|
|
|
|
* Will it introduce new release artifacts?
|
|
|
|
* Will it require changes to package dependencies: new packages, updated
|
|
package versions?
|
|
|
|
* Will it require changes to the structure of any package repositories?
|
|
|
|
* Will it require changes in build environments of any existing CI jobs? Would
|
|
such changes be backwards compatible with previous Fuel releases currently
|
|
supported by project infrastructure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------
|
|
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>
|
|
|
|
Mandatory design review:
|
|
<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 fuel, 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 Fuel, document that fact.
|
|
|
|
* Does this feature require any new library dependencies or code otherwise not
|
|
included in Fuel? Or does it depend on a specific version of library?
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
Testing, QA
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
Please discuss how the change will be tested. It is assumed that unit test
|
|
coverage will be added so that doesn't need to be mentioned explicitly.
|
|
|
|
This should include changes / enhancements to any of the integration
|
|
testing. Most often you need to indicate how you will test so that you can
|
|
prove that you did not adversely effect any of impacts sections above.
|
|
|
|
If there are firm reasons not to add any other tests, please indicate them.
|
|
|
|
After reading this section, it should be clear how you intend to confirm that
|
|
you change was implemented successfully and meets it's acceptance criteria
|
|
with minimal regressions.
|
|
|
|
Acceptance criteria
|
|
===================
|
|
|
|
Please specify clearly defined acceptance criteria for proposed changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------
|
|
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 relevant research, if appropriate
|
|
|
|
* Related specifications as appropriate
|
|
|
|
* Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to
|