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@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:44 PM Cédric Jeanneret <cjeanner@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 :).