[TripleO][Validations] Tag convention

Cédric Jeanneret cjeanner at redhat.com
Tue May 14 12:30:01 UTC 2019



On 5/10/19 11:12 AM, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/8/19 9:07 AM, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/7/19 6:24 PM, Mohammed Naser wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 12:12 PM Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:44 PM Cédric Jeanneret <cjeanner at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> We're currently working hard in order to provide a nice way to run
>>>>> validations within a deploy (aka in-flight validations).
>>>>>
>>>>> We can already call validations provided by the tripleo-validations
>>>>> package[1], it's working just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now comes the question: "how can we disable the validations?". In order
>>>>> to do that, we propose to use a standard tag in the ansible
>>>>> roles/playbooks, and to add a "--skip-tags <tag>" when we disable the
>>>>> validations via the CLI or configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> After a quick check in the tripleoclient code, there apparently is a tag
>>>>> named "validation", that can already be skipped from within the client.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, our questions:
>>>>> - would the reuse of "validation" be OK?
>>>>> - if not, what tag would be best in order to avoid confusion?
>>>>>
>>>>> We also have the idea to allow to disable validations per service. For
>>>>> this, we propose to introduce the following tag:
>>>>> - validation-<service>, like "validation-nova", "validation-neutron" and
>>>>> so on
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think about those two additions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Such as variables, I think we should prefix all our variables and tags with tripleo_ or something, to differentiate them from any other playbooks our operators could run.
>>>> I would rather use "tripleo_validations" and "tripleo_validation_nova" maybe.
>>
>> hmm. what-if we open this framework to a wider audience? For instance,
>> openshift folks might be interested in some validations (I have Ceph in
>> mind), and might find weird or even bad to have "tripleo-something"
>> (with underscore or dashes).
>> Maybe something more generic?
>> "vf(-nova)" ?
>> "validation-framework(-nova)" ?
>> Or even "opendev-validation(-nova)"
>> Since there are also a possibility to ask for a new package name for
>> something more generic without the "tripleo" taint..
> 
> 
> Can we agree on something? I really like the
> "opendev-validation(-service)", even if it's a bit long. For automated
> thins, it's still good IMHO.

*opendev-validation-(service)* will do, since no one raised a voice
against it :).

> 
> Would love to get some feedback on that so that we can go forward with
> the validations :).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> C.
> 
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> C.
>>
>>>
>>> Just chiming in here.. the pattern we like in OSA is using dashes for
>>> tags, I think having something like 'tripleo-validations' and
>>> 'tripleo-validations-nova' etc
>>>
>>>> Wdyt?
>>>> --
>>>> Emilien Macchi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Cédric Jeanneret
Software Engineer - OpenStack Platform
Red Hat EMEA
https://www.redhat.com/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190514/ade276a7/attachment.sig>


More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list