Set up for kilo specs
This adds the entries in the index so that the main page will list the specs in specs/kilo. To get sphinx to not err, a dummy .rst file (based on the template.rst) was added to specs/kilo. It should be deleted after we have an approved spec. Without this temporary fix, all spec patches will basically need to have the change in index.rst; otherwise Jenkins will not be happy. Note that the dummy .rst file needs to be added or sphinx will complain because the specs/kilo/* pattern didn't match any documents. Furthermore, the .rst file there must be valid (based on the template) or the unit tests will fail. And lastly, that dummy .rst file cannot be named 'template.rst' because we've configured it to ignore all files named 'template.rst'. If that is ignored, we're back to no files in specs/kilo, and sphinx will be unhappy again. Closes-Bug: #1379415 Change-Id: Ic4a40a5b085073bc9eebc3d2c75432f18f01cbef
This commit is contained in:
Ruby Loo
parent
75180f2772
commit
803b9e7021
|
|
@ -12,6 +12,14 @@ Juno approved specs:
|
|||
|
||||
specs/juno/*
|
||||
|
||||
Kilo approved specs:
|
||||
|
||||
.. toctree::
|
||||
:glob:
|
||||
:maxdepth: 1
|
||||
|
||||
specs/kilo/*
|
||||
|
||||
==================
|
||||
Indices and tables
|
||||
==================
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,442 @@
|
|||
..
|
||||
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
|
||||
==========================================
|
||||
|
||||
NOTE(rloo). This is a temporary file, as a placeholder so that we can get the
|
||||
specs/kilo directory to work. Remove this after we have a real spec approved.
|
||||
|
||||
Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:
|
||||
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ironic/+spec/example
|
||||
|
||||
Introduction paragraph -- start here.
|
||||
|
||||
Why are we doing anything? This should be 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 79 columns.
|
||||
|
||||
* The filename in the git repository should match the launchpad URL, for
|
||||
example a URL of: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ironic/+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 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 is the scope of this effort?
|
||||
|
||||
If you are unsure whether this proposal is aligned with the project's mission
|
||||
and scope, stop here and get feedback from the ironic-drivers and ironic-core
|
||||
teams before fleshing out all the details below.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
What other ways could we do this thing? Has someone else done this thing in
|
||||
another project? In another language? 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/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 defintion 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
|
||||
|
||||
* 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.
|
||||
|
||||
* Is a corresponding change in the client library and CLI necessary?
|
||||
|
||||
* 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.
|
||||
|
||||
Use of free-form JSON dicts should only be permitted where necessary to allow
|
||||
divergence in the drivers. In such case, the drivers must expose the expected
|
||||
content of the JSON dict and an ability to validate it.
|
||||
|
||||
Reuse of existing predefined parameter types is highly encouraged.
|
||||
|
||||
RPC API impact
|
||||
--------------
|
||||
|
||||
Changes which affect the RPC API should be listed here. For example:
|
||||
|
||||
* What are the changes, if any, to existing API calls?
|
||||
|
||||
* What new API calls are being added? Will these be using cast() or call()?
|
||||
|
||||
* ironic-api and ironic-conductor services must be upgradable independently.
|
||||
What is the upgrade process for rolling this change out to an existing
|
||||
deployment?
|
||||
|
||||
Driver API impact
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Changes which affect the driver API have a direct effect on all drivers, and
|
||||
often have a wider impact on the system. There are several things to consider
|
||||
in this section.
|
||||
|
||||
* Is it a change to a "core" or "common" API?
|
||||
|
||||
* Can all drivers support it initially, or is it specific to a particular
|
||||
vendor's hardware?
|
||||
|
||||
* How will it be tested in the gate and in third-party CI systems?
|
||||
|
||||
* If adding a new interface, explain the intended scope of the proposed
|
||||
interface, what functionality it enables, why it is needed, and whether it is
|
||||
supported by current drivers.
|
||||
|
||||
* If adding or changing a method on an existing interface, the impact on
|
||||
existing drivers should be explored.
|
||||
|
||||
* Will the new interface or method need to be invoked when the hash ring
|
||||
rebalances, for example to rebuild local state on a new conductor service?
|
||||
|
||||
* How does this affect upgrades? Third-party drivers could be updated
|
||||
independently from this change, and care must be taken not to break
|
||||
backwards-compatibility within our Driver API.
|
||||
|
||||
Nova driver impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Chances are, if this change affects the REST or Driver APIs, it will also
|
||||
affect the Nova driver in some way. If this requires a functional change in
|
||||
Nova, chances are the Nova team will require a spec to discuss the changes to
|
||||
their project as well. Provide a link to that here, or a justification for why
|
||||
that is not needed.
|
||||
|
||||
Questions which need to be addressed in this section include:
|
||||
|
||||
* What is the impact on Nova?
|
||||
|
||||
* If this change is enabling new functionality exposed via Nova, this section
|
||||
should cite the relevant components within other Nova drivers that alraedy
|
||||
implement this.
|
||||
|
||||
* Ironic and Nova services must be upgradable independently. If the change
|
||||
affects existing functionality of the nova.virt.ironic driver, how will an
|
||||
upgrade be performed? How will it be tested?
|
||||
|
||||
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 credentials?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change affect the accessibility of hardware managed by Ironic?
|
||||
|
||||
* 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.
|
||||
|
||||
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-ironicclient? What does the user
|
||||
interface there look like?
|
||||
|
||||
* Will this require changes in the Horizon panel, or any other OpenStack
|
||||
project?
|
||||
|
||||
Scalability impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples of things to consider here include:
|
||||
|
||||
* Additional network calls to internal or external services.
|
||||
|
||||
* Additional disk or network traffic that will be required by the feature.
|
||||
|
||||
* Any change in the number of physical nodes which can be managed by each
|
||||
conductor service.
|
||||
|
||||
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 all periodic tasks run
|
||||
in a single thread so a periodic task that takes a long time to run will have
|
||||
an effect on the timing of other periodic tasks.
|
||||
|
||||
* A small change in a utility function or a commonly used decorator can have a
|
||||
large impact on performance.
|
||||
|
||||
* Calls which result in one or more database queries (whether in the api or
|
||||
conductor services) can have a profound impact on performance when called in
|
||||
critical sections of the code.
|
||||
|
||||
* Will the change include any TaskManager locking, and if so what
|
||||
considerations are there on holding the lock?
|
||||
|
||||
* How will the new code be affected if the hash ring rebalances while it is
|
||||
running?
|
||||
|
||||
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 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 requried 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. For example, if we
|
||||
were to change the directory that PXE boot files were stored in, how would we
|
||||
update existing boot files created before the change landed? Would we require
|
||||
deployers to manually move them? Is there a special case in the code, which
|
||||
would be removed after some deprecation period? Would we require operators
|
||||
to delete and recreate all instances in order to perform the upgrade?
|
||||
|
||||
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 drivers 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 Ironic, 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 Ironic, 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?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this feature target specific hardware? If so, is it a common standard
|
||||
(eg IPMI) or a vendor-specific implementation (eg iLO)?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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)?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Upgrades and Backwards Compatibility
|
||||
====================================
|
||||
|
||||
Care must be taken to support our users by not breaking backwards compatibility
|
||||
with either REST API or Driver API changes.
|
||||
|
||||
* 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 Driver API, describe how
|
||||
existing driver implementations will continue to function when loaded by a
|
||||
conductor running with the new driver base class.
|
||||
|
||||
* 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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