[openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

Matt Wagner matt.wagner at redhat.com
Fri Dec 6 21:55:55 UTC 2013

Thanks, Liz! Seeing things this way is really helpful.

(I actually feel like wireframes -> requirements -> user stories is
exactly the opposite of how this normally goes, but hitting all of the
steps either way makes things much clearer.)

I've raised some questions below. I think many of them aren't aimed at
you per se, but are more general things that seeing the user stories has
helped me realize we could clarify.

On Fri Dec  6 15:31:36 2013, Liz Blanchard wrote:

> - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna expects that the
> management node for the deployment services is already up and running
> and the status of this node is shown in the UI.

The 'management node' here is the undercloud node that Anna is
interacting with, as I understand it. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
So it's not a bad idea to show its status, but I guess the mere fact
that she's using it will indicate that it's operational.

> - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants to review the
> distribution of the nodes that she has assigned before kicking off
> the "Deploy" task.

What does she expect to see here on the review screen that she didn't
see on the previous screens, if anything? Is this just a summation, or
is she expecting to see things like which node will get which role? (I'd
argue for the former; I don't know that we can predict the latter.)

> - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants to monitor the
> deployment process of all of the nodes that she has assigned.

I think there's an implied "...through the UI" here, versus tailing log
files to watch state. Does she just expect to see states like "Pending",
"Deploying", or "Finished", versus, say, having the full logs shown in
the UI? (I'd vote 'yes'.)

> - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna needs to be able to
> troubleshoot any errors that may occur during the deployment of nodes
> process.

I'm not sure that the "...through the UI" implication I mentioned above
extends here. (IMHO) I assume that if things fail, Anna might be okay
with us showing a message that $foo failed on $bar, and she should try
looking in /var/log/$baz for full details. Does that seem fair? (At
least early on.)

> - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants to be able to view
> the history of nodes that have been in a deployment.

Why does she want to view history of past nodes?

Note that I'm not arguing against this; it's just not abundantly clear
to me what she'll be using this information for. Does she want a history
to check off an "Audit log" checkbox, or will she be looking to extract
certain data from this history?

Thanks again for creating these user stories, Liz!

Matt Wagner
Software Engineer, Red Hat

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 600 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131206/e1ceb036/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list