<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/12/15 23:04, Dmitry Tantsur
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56616520.9080503@redhat.com" type="cite">On
12/03/2015 08:45 PM, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hey all,
<br>
<br>
Over the past few months, there's been a lot of discussion and
work around
<br>
creating a new REST API-supported TripleO deployment workflow.
However most
<br>
of that discussion has been fragmented within spec reviews and
weekly IRC
<br>
meetings, so I thought it might make sense to provide a
high-level overview
<br>
of what's been going on. Hopefully it'll provide some useful
perspective for
<br>
those that are curious!
<br>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
Tzu-Mainn Chen
<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
1. Explanation for Deployment Workflow Change
<br>
<br>
TripleO uses Heat to deploy clouds. Heat allows tremendous
flexibility at the
<br>
cost of enormous complexity. Fortunately TripleO has the space
to allow
<br>
developers to create tools to simplify the process
tremendously, resulting in
<br>
a deployment process that is both simple and flexible to user
needs.
<br>
<br>
The current CLI-based TripleO workflow asks the deployer to
modify a base set
<br>
of Heat environment files directly before calling Heat's
stack-create command.
<br>
This requires much knowledge and precision, and is a process
prone to error.
<br>
<br>
However this process can be eased by understanding that there is
a pattern to
<br>
these modifications; for example, if a deployer wishes to enable
network
<br>
isolation, a specific set of modifications must be made. These
modification
<br>
sets can be encapsulated through pre-created Heat environment
files, and TripleO
<br>
contains a library of these
<br>
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/tree/master/environments">https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/tree/master/environments</a>).
<br>
<br>
These environments are further categorized through the proposed
environment
<br>
capabilities map (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242439">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242439</a>).
This mapping file
<br>
contains programmatic metadata, adding items such as
user-friendly text around
<br>
environment files and marking certain environments as mutually
exclusive.
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. Summary of Updated Deployment Workflow
<br>
<br>
Here's a summary of the updated TripleO deployment workflow.
<br>
<br>
1. Create a Plan: Upload a base set of heat templates and
environment files
<br>
into a Swift container. This Swift container will be
versioned to allow
<br>
for future work with respect to updates and upgrades.
<br>
<br>
2. Environment Selection: Select the appropriate
environment files for your
<br>
deployment.
<br>
<br>
3. Modify Parameters: Modify additional deployment
parameters. These
<br>
parameters are influenced by the environment selection
in step 2.
<br>
<br>
4. Deploy: Send the contents of the plan's Swift container
to Heat for
<br>
deployment.
<br>
<br>
Note that the current CLI-based workflow still fits here: a
deployer can modify
<br>
Heat files directly prior to step 1, follow step 1, and then
skip directly to
<br>
step 4. This also allows for trial deployments with test
configurations.
<br>
<br>
<br>
3. TripleO Python Library, REST API, and GUI
<br>
<br>
Right now, much of the existing TripleO deployment logic lives
within the TripleO
<br>
CLI code, making it inaccessible to non-Python based UIs.
Putting both old and
<br>
new deployment logic into tripleo-common and then creating a
REST API on top of
<br>
that logic will enable modern Javascript-based GUIs to create
cloud deployments
<br>
using TripleO.
<br>
<br>
<br>
4. Future Work - Validations
<br>
<br>
A possible next step is to add validations to the TripleO
toolkit: scripts that
<br>
can be used to check the validity of your deployment pre-, in-,
and post-flight.
<br>
These validations will be runnable and queryable through a REST
API. Note that
<br>
the above deployment workflow should not be a requirement for
validations to be
<br>
run.
<br>
<br>
<br>
5. In-Progress Development
<br>
<br>
The initial spec for the tripleo-common library has already been
approved, and
<br>
various people have been pushing work forward. Here's a
summary:
<br>
<br>
* Move shared business logic out of CLI
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/249134">https://review.openstack.org/249134</a> - simple validations
(WIP)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
When is this going to be finished? It's going to get me a huge
merge conflict in <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/250405/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/250405/</a> (and
make it impossible to backport to liberty btw).
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
This plan would be fine if Mitaka development was the only
consideration but I hope that it can be adapted a little bit to take
into account the Liberty branches, and the significant backports
that will be happening there. The
rdomanager-plugin->tripleoclient transition made backports
painful, and having moved on for that it would be ideal if we didn't
create the same situation again.<br>
<br>
What I would propose is the following:<br>
- the tripleo_common repo is renamed to tripleo and consumed by
Mitaka<br>
- the tripleo_common repo continues to exist in Liberty<br>
- the change to rename the package tripleo_common to tripleo occurs
on the tripleo repo in the master branch using oslo-style wildcard
imports[1], and initially no deprecation message<br>
- this change is backported to the tripleo_common repo on the
stable/liberty branch<br>
<br>
Once this is in place, stable/liberty tripleoclient can gradually
move from the tripleo_common to the tripleo package, and parts of
then tripleoclient -> tripleo_common business logic move can also
be backported where appropriate.<br>
<br>
I'm planning on adding some liberty backportable commands as part of
blueprint tripleo-manage-software-deployments [2] and this approach
would greatly ease the backport process, and allow the business
logic to start in the tripleo repo.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56616520.9080503@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> * <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/228991">https://review.openstack.org/228991</a> -
deployment code (ready for review)
<br>
<br>
* Additional TripleO business logic
<br>
* rename tripleo-common repo to tripleo
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/249521/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/249521/</a> (ready for
review)
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/249524/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/249524/</a> (ready for
review)
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/247834/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/247834/</a> (ready for
review)
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
(here is my review comment on this change)<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p style="-webkit-margin-before: 0px; -webkit-margin-after: 0.3em;
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">I'd like to propose that we have a period where the
tripleo_common package continues to be usable without a
deprecation message.</p>
<p style="-webkit-margin-before: 0px; -webkit-margin-after: 0.3em;
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">Rather than using deprecated subclasses, can we just do
oslo-style wildcard imports [1] for this package transition?</p>
<p style="-webkit-margin-before: 0px; -webkit-margin-after: 0.3em;
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">If we did that then the test files could just be moved to
tripleo, rather than duplicating them.</p>
<p style="-webkit-margin-before: 0px; -webkit-margin-after: 0.3em;
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">What I am hoping is that this change can be backported to
stable/liberty of tripleo_co
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: small; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display:
inline !important; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">mmon so that stable/liberty tripleoclient can gradually
transition over, and the work to move business logic out of
tripleoclient can also have targeted backports to liberty
tripleo_common/tripleoclient.</span></p>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56616520.9080503@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> *
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242439">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242439</a> - capabilities map
(ready for review)
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/227297/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/227297/</a> - base tripleo
library code (ready for review)
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/232534/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/232534/</a> - utility
functions to manage environments (ready for review)
<br>
* after the above is merged, plan.py will need to be updated
to include environment methods
<br>
<br>
* TripleO API
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/230432/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/230432/</a> - API spec (ready
for review)
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243737/">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243737/</a> - API (WIP)
<br>
* after the library code is fully merged, API will need to be
updated to allow access
<br>
to a plan's environment manipulation methods
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
What is the expected timeframe for tripleoclient to move from the
tripleo library to the REST API? If it isn't done by the end of
Mitaka then we'll end up with a client that indirectly depends on
server packages like Flask, keystonemiddleware, oslo.middleware. I
realize we've already made the repo split decision, I just wanted to
make sure that folk are aware of this consequence.<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo.utils/tree/oslo/utils/importutils.py?h=stable/kilo">http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo.utils/tree/oslo/utils/importutils.py?h=stable/kilo</a><br>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/251587">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/251587</a><br>
</body>
</html>