Open Stack

Hi Steve,

I am happy to assist in any way to be honest.

The backwards compatibility is not always correct as I have seen when 
developing our library of templates on Liberty and then trying to deploy 
it on Mitaka for example.

As you guys mentioned in our discussions the Networking example I quoted 
is not something you guys can deal with as the source project affects this.

Unless we can use this exercise to test these and fix them then I am 
happier.

My vision would be to have a set of templates and examples that are 
tested regularly against a running OS deployment so that we can make 
sure the combinations still run. I am sure we can agree on a way to do 
this with CICD so that we test the fetureset.

I look forward to assisting the community with this.

Regards

Lance



On 15.05.17 16:03, Steven Hardy wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:21:30AM -0400, Lance Haig wrote:
>>     Good to know that there is interest.
> Thanks for starting this effort - I agree it would be great to see the
> example templates we provide improved and over time become better
> references for heat features (as well as being more well tested).
>
>>     I was thinking that we should perhaps create a directory for each
>>     openstack version.
> I'm personally not keen on this - Heat should handle old HOT versions in a
> backwards compatible way, and we can use the template version (which
> supports using the release name in recent heat versions) to document the
> required version e.g if demonstrating some new resource or function.
>
> FWIW we did already try something similar in the early days of heat, where
> we had duplicate wordpress examples for different releases (operating
> systems not OpenStack versions but it's the same problem).  We found that
> old versions quickly became unmaintained, and ultimately got broken anyway
> due to changes unrelated to Heat or OpenStack versions.
>
>>     so we start say with a mitaka directory and then move the files there and
>>     test them all so that they work with Liberty.
>>     Then we can copy it over to Mitaka and do the same but add the extra
>>     functionality.
> While some manual testing each release is better than nothing, honestly I
> feel like CI testing some (or ideally all) examples is the only way to
> ensure they're not broken.  Clearly that's going to be more work initially,
> but it'd be worth considering I think.
>
> To make this simple for template authors, we could perhaps just create the
> template with the default parameters, and codify some special place to
> define the expected ouput values (we could for example have a special
> expected_output parameter which the CI test consumes and compares after the
> stack create completes).
>
>>     and then Newton etc...
>>     That way if someone is on a specific version they only have to go to a
>>     specific directory to get the examples they need.
> As mentioned above, I think just using the template version should be
> enough - we could even generate some docs using this to highlight example
> templates that are specific to a release?
>
> Steve
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev