Add MAAS spec
We intend to add support for MAAS, another bare metal provisioning and management service. Note that the tox job fails at the moment as "whitelist_externals" has been deprecated in favor of "allowlist_externals", so we'll need to address that as well. Another issue that we need to fix is that sphinx is unable to locate some image files: /home/zuul/src/opendev.org/openstack/watcher-specs/doc/source/ specs/newton/implemented/scoring-module.rst:232: WARNING: image file not readable: doc/source/images/scoring-module-deployment.png Change-Id: I54b3c578f677ad7d554732a5018163e4780f9457
This commit is contained in:
Lucian Petrut
parent
86df397e3e
commit
ea19cfd56e
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,379 @@
|
|||
..
|
||||
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/watcher/+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 watcher-spec and blueprint process:
|
||||
|
||||
* Not all blueprints need a spec. For more information see
|
||||
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/blueprints.html#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/watcher/+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 Watcher 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. Specifications with
|
||||
the APIImpact flag can be found with the following query:
|
||||
|
||||
https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/watcher-specs+message:apiimpact,n,z
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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 Watcher, 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
|
||||
|
||||
* Parameters which can be passed via the url
|
||||
|
||||
* JSON schema definition for the body data if allowed
|
||||
|
||||
* JSON schema definition for the response data if any
|
||||
|
||||
* Example use case including typical API samples for both data supplied
|
||||
by the caller and the response
|
||||
|
||||
* Discuss any policy changes, and discuss what things a 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 (e.g.,
|
||||
additionalProperties 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-watcherclient? 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? 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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 Watcher, 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 Watcher (such as the glance v2 API when we previously only required v1),
|
||||
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 Watcher 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
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
History
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Optional section for liberty 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
|
||||
* - Caracal
|
||||
- Introduced
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
|
|||
..
|
||||
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
||||
License.
|
||||
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
|
||||
============
|
||||
MAAS support
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/watcher/+spec/maas-support
|
||||
|
||||
This blueprint aims to introduce Watcher support for MAAS, another bare metal
|
||||
provisioning and management service that's commonly used with Openstack.
|
||||
|
||||
Problem description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
Metal-As-A-Service (MAAS) is an open source project led by Canonical that
|
||||
allows provisioning and managing bare metal nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
Right now, Watcher can only use Ironic, however MAAS support can be added with
|
||||
minimal changes.
|
||||
|
||||
Use Cases
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
Some Openstack clusters are deployed using MAAS + Juju instead of Ironic.
|
||||
By adding MAAS support, we'll allow Watcher to discover MAAS nodes and perform
|
||||
power actions, adjusting the number of running nodes based on the current
|
||||
workload.
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
We'll add a simple bare metal client abstraction with concrete implementations
|
||||
for Ironic and MAAS.
|
||||
|
||||
If a MAAS endpoint and credentials are provided, we'll pick the MAAS client,
|
||||
otherwise defaulting to the Ironic client.
|
||||
|
||||
The python-libmaas client will be used to interact with the MAAS service.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Data model impact
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
REST API impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Security impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
A MAAS authentication key will have to be provided through a config option.
|
||||
|
||||
Notifications impact
|
||||
--------------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Other end user impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Other deployer impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
The MAAS URL and authentication key will have to be configured when using
|
||||
MAAS.
|
||||
|
||||
Developer impact
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
||||
Assignee(s)
|
||||
-----------
|
||||
|
||||
Primary assignee:
|
||||
<petrutlucian94>
|
||||
|
||||
Work Items
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
* Add new Watcher config options
|
||||
* Add metal client abstraction
|
||||
* Provide proper test coverage
|
||||
* Update Juju Watcher charm, exposing the new config options
|
||||
|
||||
Dependencies
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Testing
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Unit tests will be provided for the newly added code.
|
||||
|
||||
Power cycle operations are disruptive and can affect other tests, which
|
||||
is probably the reason why there are no existing functional or integration
|
||||
tests for the "energy saving" strategy. Such tests would excercise the MAAS
|
||||
client as well.
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
The new MAAS related config options will have to be documented. Also, some
|
||||
Ironic references may need to be updated, reflecting the fact that Watcher
|
||||
can now use more than one bare metal management service.
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
* https://maas.io
|
||||
* https://git.launchpad.net/maas/
|
||||
* https://github.com/maas/python-libmaas
|
||||
* https://github.com/openstack/charm-watcher
|
||||
|
||||
History
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
.. list-table:: Revisions
|
||||
:header-rows: 1
|
||||
|
||||
* - Release Name
|
||||
- Description
|
||||
* - Caracal
|
||||
- Introduced
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ architecture).
|
|||
Below you will find a diagram, showing the functional need regarding Actions
|
||||
management in Watcher:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/Watcher_Actions_Management_Functional_Need.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/Watcher_Actions_Management_Functional_Need.png
|
||||
:width: 140%
|
||||
|
||||
You can see that there is a need in Watcher for three main phases:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ from its internal cache.
|
|||
Here below is a sequence diagram depicting the workflow to be used in order to
|
||||
retrieve all the cluster data model:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/sequence_diagram_cluster_objects_wrapper_get_latest_model.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/sequence_diagram_cluster_objects_wrapper_get_latest_model.png
|
||||
:width: 140%
|
||||
|
||||
Each implementation of the ``BaseClusterModelCollector`` should begin
|
||||
|
|
@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ sensible default is likely in the every 60 minute range.
|
|||
Here below is a sequence diagram depicting the workflow to periodically
|
||||
synchronize all the cluster data models:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/sequence_diagram_cluster_objects_wrapper_sync.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/sequence_diagram_cluster_objects_wrapper_sync.png
|
||||
:width: 140%
|
||||
|
||||
If the periodic sync up tasks are the only method of updating the cache,
|
||||
|
|
@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ handler would be able to receive notifications such as:
|
|||
Here below is a sequence diagram depicting the workflow to update cluster data
|
||||
models after receiving a notification:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/sequence_diagram_cluster_objects_wrapper_notification.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/sequence_diagram_cluster_objects_wrapper_notification.png
|
||||
:width: 140%
|
||||
|
||||
Note that a single notification will not prompt the entire cluster model to be
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ stored metrics, ...).
|
|||
Below you will find a class diagram showing the hierarchy of `Strategies`_ for
|
||||
several goals and how they are related to efficacy specification classes:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/class_diagram_efficacy_indicator.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/class_diagram_efficacy_indicator.png
|
||||
:width: 140%
|
||||
|
||||
In the future, the `DDD Specification Pattern`_ will enable Watcher to compose
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ class and return the same `Goal`_ properties.
|
|||
Below you will find a class diagram showing a hierarchy of Strategies for
|
||||
several goals:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/class_diagram_goal_from_strategy.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/class_diagram_goal_from_strategy.png
|
||||
:width: 140%
|
||||
|
||||
In the future, it will also enable Watcher strategies to provide other common
|
||||
|
|
@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ The second one is performance and HA.
|
|||
|
||||
Below the strategy class and sequence diagram for syncing the goals.
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/get_goal_from_strategy_class_diagram.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/get_goal_from_strategy_class_diagram.png
|
||||
:width: 140%
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ Therefore a new table should be created in the database for this.
|
|||
The proposed modification in the `Watcher database`_.
|
||||
is illustrated on the diagram below:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/get_goal_from_strategy_class_diagram.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/get_goal_from_strategy_class_diagram.png
|
||||
:width: 140%
|
||||
|
||||
In the audit_template object, the 'strategy' attribute is optional.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ Proposed change
|
|||
Here below is the class diagram outlining the changes that will have to be made
|
||||
in order to support the addition of configuration options:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/class_diagram_plugin_parameters.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/class_diagram_plugin_parameters.png
|
||||
:width: 100%
|
||||
|
||||
Moreover, all plugins are currently instantiated by the ``DefaultLoader`` when
|
||||
|
|
@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ abstract class method that every plugin class should implement. The latter
|
|||
method needs to be an class method so that when Watcher will collect the
|
||||
configuration of each plugin, there will be no need to instantiate them.
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/sequence_diagram_plugin_parameters_load_plugin_parameters.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/sequence_diagram_plugin_parameters_load_plugin_parameters.png
|
||||
:width: 100%
|
||||
|
||||
In order to expose these plugin parameters to the administrator, we also have
|
||||
|
|
@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ to auto-discover them when we use the configuration file generator which is
|
|||
triggered either during the generation of the Watcher documentation or manually
|
||||
with the ``tox -e config`` command:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/sequence_diagram_plugin_parameters_generate_config.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/sequence_diagram_plugin_parameters_generate_config.png
|
||||
:width: 100%
|
||||
|
||||
In order to be able to achieve the process described in the above sequence
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ Usage scenarios
|
|||
|
||||
The most basic scenario is presented on the following diagram:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/scoring-engine-inside-decision-engine.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/scoring-engine-inside-decision-engine.png
|
||||
|
||||
It's important to notice that Scoring Engines might have different
|
||||
requirements and the implementations might vary. Some of them might be
|
||||
|
|
@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ In these cases it makes a sense to delegate the execution to Watcher Scoring
|
|||
module, which will be a new Watcher service, similar to `Watcher Decision
|
||||
Engine`_ or `Watcher Applier`_:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/scoring-engine-inside-scoring-module.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/scoring-engine-inside-scoring-module.png
|
||||
|
||||
Some other Scoring Engines might be implemented using external frameworks or
|
||||
even live entirely in the cloud, exposing only some API to work with them.
|
||||
|
|
@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ In this scenario, the abstraction layer will simply delegate work to these
|
|||
external systems (e.g. using some HTTP client libraries), as illustrated on
|
||||
the diagram below:
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/scoring-engine-in-the-cloud.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/scoring-engine-in-the-cloud.png
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation details
|
||||
----------------------
|
||||
|
|
@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ will be required to implement, whether the Watcher Scoring module part will be
|
|||
optional (it's not needed for example when using external analytics platforms
|
||||
running in the cloud).
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../../../doc/source/images/scoring-module-deployment.png
|
||||
.. image:: /images/scoring-module-deployment.png
|
||||
|
||||
In addition, it will be possible to register multiple Scoring Engines from a
|
||||
single plug-in. The Scoring Engine list will also be dynamic, meaning that it
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
4
tox.ini
4
tox.ini
|
|
@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ usedevelop = True
|
|||
setenv = VIRTUAL_ENV={envdir}
|
||||
deps = -c{env:UPPER_CONSTRAINTS_FILE:https://releases.openstack.org/constraints/upper/master}
|
||||
-r{toxinidir}/test-requirements.txt
|
||||
whitelist_externals = find
|
||||
allowlist_externals = find
|
||||
commands =
|
||||
find . -type f -name "*.pyc" -delete
|
||||
stestr run --slowest {posargs}
|
||||
|
|
@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ commands =
|
|||
[testenv:pdf-docs]
|
||||
envdir = {toxworkdir}/docs
|
||||
deps = {[testenv:docs]deps}
|
||||
whitelist_externals =
|
||||
allowlist_externals =
|
||||
rm
|
||||
make
|
||||
commands =
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue