|
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ |
|
|
|
.. |
|
|
|
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/masakari/+spec/example |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing anything? A single paragraph of |
|
|
|
prose that operators can understand. The title and this first paragraph |
|
|
|
should be used as the subject line and body of the commit message |
|
|
|
respectively. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some notes about the masakari-spec and blueprint process: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Not all blueprints need a spec. For more information see |
|
|
|
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Masakari-specs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The aim of this document is first to define the problem we need to solve, |
|
|
|
and second agree the overall approach to solve that problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* This is not intended to be extensive documentation for a new feature. |
|
|
|
For example, there is no need to specify the exact configuration changes, |
|
|
|
nor the exact details of any DB model changes. But you should still define |
|
|
|
that such changes are required, and be clear on how that will affect |
|
|
|
upgrades. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* You should aim to get your spec approved before writing your code. |
|
|
|
While you are free to write prototypes and code before getting your spec |
|
|
|
approved, its possible that the outcome of the spec review process leads |
|
|
|
you towards a fundamentally different solution than you first envisaged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* But, API changes are held to a much higher level of scrutiny. |
|
|
|
As soon as an API change merges, we must assume it could be in production |
|
|
|
somewhere, and as such, we then need to support that API change forever. |
|
|
|
To avoid getting that wrong, we do want lots of details about API changes |
|
|
|
upfront. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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/masakari/+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 and see the generated |
|
|
|
HTML file in doc/build/html/specs/<path_of_your_file> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If your specification proposes any changes to the Masakari REST API such |
|
|
|
as changing parameters which can be returned or accepted, or even |
|
|
|
the semantics of what happens when a client calls into the API, then |
|
|
|
you should add the APIImpact flag to the commit message. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem description |
|
|
|
=================== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A detailed description of the problem. What problem is this blueprint |
|
|
|
addressing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use Cases |
|
|
|
--------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What use cases does this address? What impact on actors does this change have? |
|
|
|
Ensure you are clear about the actors in each use case: Developer, End User, |
|
|
|
Deployer etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At this point, if you would like to just get feedback on if the problem and |
|
|
|
proposed change fit in Masakari, you can stop here and post this for |
|
|
|
review to get preliminary feedback. If so please say: |
|
|
|
Posting to get preliminary feedback on the scope of this spec. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 definition do not need to be included. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* URL for the resource |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* URL should not include underscores, and use hyphens instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Parameters which can be passed via the url |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* JSON schema definition for the request body data if allowed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Field names should use snake_case style, not CamelCase or MixedCase |
|
|
|
style. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* JSON schema definition for the response body data if any |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Field names should use snake_case style, not CamelCase or MixedCase |
|
|
|
style. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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-masakariclient? 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 Masakari, |
|
|
|
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 Masakari (such as nova, or masakari-monitors, python-masakariclient), |
|
|
|
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 the important scenarios needed to test here, as well as |
|
|
|
specific edge cases we should be ensuring work correctly. For each |
|
|
|
scenario please specify if this requires specialized hardware, a full |
|
|
|
openstack environment, or can be simulated inside the Masakari tree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
==================== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which audiences are affected most by this change, and which documentation |
|
|
|
titles on docs.openstack.org should be updated because of this change? Don't |
|
|
|
repeat details discussed above, but reference them here in the context of |
|
|
|
documentation for multiple audiences. For example, the Operations Guide targets |
|
|
|
cloud operators, and the End User Guide would need to be updated if the change |
|
|
|
offers a new feature available through the CLI or dashboard. If a config option |
|
|
|
changes or is deprecated, note here that the documentation needs to be updated |
|
|
|
to reflect this specification's change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
History |
|
|
|
======= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional section intended to be used each time the spec is updated to describe |
|
|
|
new design, API or any database schema updated. Useful to let reader understand |
|
|
|
what's happened along the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. list-table:: Revisions |
|
|
|
:header-rows: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* - Release Name |
|
|
|
- Description |
|
|
|
* - Wallaby |
|
|
|
- Introduced |
Zuul
4 months ago
Gerrit Code Review