b907920463
Minor revision on the template: * Change launchpad to storyboard. * Remove the obsolete requirement on spec filename. * Add a section named ironic impact. * Update assignee section to have an other contributor. * Remove some extra spaces. Change-Id: I0970cd1de276ca01c228a617f9cd5a21f9e57052
312 lines
10 KiB
ReStructuredText
312 lines
10 KiB
ReStructuredText
..
|
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
|
License.
|
|
|
|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
|
|
|
==================
|
|
Title of your Spec
|
|
==================
|
|
|
|
Include the URL of your StoryBoard story (which should have an `rfe`` tag):
|
|
|
|
https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/XXXXXXX
|
|
|
|
Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing anything?
|
|
|
|
Some notes about using this template:
|
|
|
|
* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
|
|
|
|
* Please wrap text at 79 columns.
|
|
|
|
* 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://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/basics.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 inline 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, Admin User, Deployer, or another Service
|
|
|
|
* 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?
|
|
|
|
Include where in the ironic-inspector tree hierarchy this will reside.
|
|
|
|
Alternatives
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
This is an optional section, where it does apply we'd just like a demonstration
|
|
that some thought has been put into why the proposed approach is the best 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.
|
|
|
|
HTTP API impact
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
Describe changes to the HTTP 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/PATCH)
|
|
|
|
* Normal http response code(s)
|
|
|
|
* Expected error http response code(s)
|
|
|
|
* A description for each possible error code should be included.
|
|
Describe semantic errors which can cause it, such as
|
|
inconsistent parameters supplied to the method, or when a
|
|
resource 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, including data types
|
|
|
|
* JSON schema definition for the body data if allowed
|
|
|
|
* JSON schema definition for the response data if any
|
|
|
|
* Does the API microversion need to increment?
|
|
|
|
* Example use case including typical API samples for both data supplied
|
|
by the caller and the response
|
|
|
|
* Is this change discoverable by clients? Not all clients will upgrade at the
|
|
same time, so this change must work with older clients without breaking them.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Reuse of existing predefined parameter types is highly encouraged.
|
|
|
|
Client (CLI) impact
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
Typically, but not always, if there are any REST API changes, there are
|
|
corresponding changes to python-ironic-inspector-client. If so, what does
|
|
the user interface look like. If not, describe why there are REST API changes
|
|
but no changes to the client.
|
|
|
|
Ironic python agent impact
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
If this change affects the ironic-python-agent, please describe related
|
|
changes here.
|
|
|
|
Questions which need to be addressed in this section include:
|
|
|
|
* What is the impact on the ironic-python-agent?
|
|
|
|
* If the change affects existing functionality, how will an upgrade be
|
|
performed? How will it be tested?
|
|
|
|
Ironic impact
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
If this change affects the ironic, please describe related changes here.
|
|
|
|
Questions which need to be addressed in this section include:
|
|
|
|
* What is the impact on the ironic, or the inspector inspect interface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance and scalability 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.
|
|
|
|
Describe any potential scalability impact on the system, for example any
|
|
increase in network, RPC, or database traffic, or whether the feature
|
|
requires synchronization across multiple services.
|
|
|
|
Security impact
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
Describe any potential security impact on the system.
|
|
|
|
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 hardware drivers might want to
|
|
implement as well)? Are the default values appropriate for production?
|
|
Provide an explanation of why these defaults are reasonable.
|
|
|
|
* Is this a change that takes immediate effect after it's merged, or is it
|
|
something that has to be explicitly enabled?
|
|
|
|
* If this change adds a new service that deployers will be required to run,
|
|
how would it be deployed? Describe the expected topology, for example,
|
|
what network connectivity the new service would need, what service(s) it
|
|
would interact with, how many should run relative to the size of the
|
|
deployment, and so on.
|
|
|
|
* 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.
|
|
|
|
* If your proposal includes any changes to the REST API, describe how existing
|
|
clients will continue to function when interacting with an upgraded API
|
|
server.
|
|
|
|
* Describe what testing you will be adding to ensure that backwards
|
|
compatibility is maintained.
|
|
|
|
* If deprecating an existing feature or API, describe the deprecation plan, and
|
|
for how long compatibility will be maintained.
|
|
|
|
Developer impact
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
Discuss things that will affect other developers working on OpenStack,
|
|
such as:
|
|
|
|
* If the blueprint proposes a change to the hooks API, discussion of how
|
|
other hooks would implement the feature is required. Describe how
|
|
existing hooks will continue to function after the change.
|
|
|
|
Upgrades and Backwards Compatibility
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Care must be taken to support our users by not breaking backwards compatibility
|
|
with either REST API or plugins API for data processing.
|
|
|
|
* If your proposal includes any changes to the REST API, describe how existing
|
|
clients will continue to function when interacting with an upgraded API
|
|
server.
|
|
|
|
* If your proposal includes any changes to the plugins API, describe how
|
|
existing plugins implementations will continue to function with the new
|
|
plugin interface.
|
|
|
|
* Describe what testing you will be adding to ensure that backwards
|
|
compatibility is maintained.
|
|
|
|
* If deprecating an existing feature or API, describe the deprecation plan, and
|
|
for how long compatibility will be maintained.
|
|
|
|
* If new code should need something more than 'db migrations', describe
|
|
upgrading procedure 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:
|
|
<IRC handle, email address, or None>
|
|
|
|
Other contributors:
|
|
<IRC handle, email address, 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 ironic-inspector,
|
|
or in other projects, that this one either depends on or is related to.
|
|
|
|
- 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|