This patch fixes the queens spec directory structure which is
missed by this commit: b08b7ce819
.
Change-Id: I31ac869f22ee472a5dced3dee2473bf160dc11c9
changes/19/522219/1
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ Here you can find the specs, and spec template, for each release: | |||
:glob: | |||
:maxdepth: 1 | |||
specs/queens/index | |||
specs/ocata/index | |||
specs/pike/index | |||
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
../../../../specs/queens/approved |
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
../../../../specs/queens/implemented |
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ | |||
============================== | |||
Masakari Queens Specifications | |||
============================== | |||
Template: | |||
.. toctree:: | |||
:maxdepth: 1 | |||
Specification Template (Queens release) <template> | |||
Queens implemented specs: | |||
.. toctree:: | |||
:glob: | |||
:maxdepth: 1 | |||
implemented/* | |||
Queens approved (but not implemented) specs: | |||
.. toctree:: | |||
:glob: | |||
:maxdepth: 1 | |||
approved/* |
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
../../../../specs/queens/redirects |
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
../../../../specs/queens-template.rst |
@@ -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 | |||
* - Queens | |||
- Introduced |
@@ -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 | |||
* - Queens | |||
- Introduced |
@@ -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 | |||
* - Queens | |||
- Introduced |