Open Stack

Vitaly,

Once again, as a plugin developer I don't care about how Sahara or Murano
is implemented. I don't care about checkboxes, either. I just want one
simple command to run on target nodes and I should be provided with the
simplest possible interface to:
1) Write this command in some YAML and don't care about anything else
2) Enable my plugin for particular environment and see if it's really
enabled both on UI and CLI (and through pure API by simple field checking)

If it provides some separate service - this doesn't change anything, I just
need it to be listed somewhere in "plugins" inside cluster data to know
that it'll be executed.

How will it work with your approach?
08 Окт 2014 г. 20:00 пользователь "Vitaly Kramskikh" <
vkramskikh at mirantis.com> написал:

> Hi, responses inline.
>
> 2014-10-08 21:09 GMT+07:00 Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Vitaly, I understand your concerns about UX.
>> But there are technical problems and statements which affect
>> plugin developer and makes his live more complicated.
>>
>> My opinion is we definitely should know, if plugin is disabled
>> or if it's enabled for specific environment.
>>
>> 1. plugin developer defines tasks, like "I want the script to be
>>     executed on nodes with controller role" and I don't think that
>>     he expects this task to be run on all of the nodes, also
>>     I don't think that we want ask plugin developer to parse
>>     yaml with bash in order to understand if his plugin is enabled,
>>     it's a bad design
>>
> Bash script shouldn't be even run if the conditions to run it are not met.
> I described above how it could be done.
>
>> 2. there will be no way to uninstall the plugin, because all of the
>>     plugins are enabled on the environments, even if user doesn't
>>     use them
>>
> Well, this is the only issue that I see with the first approach and I
> still don't know how to solve it.
>
>> Also I don't think that it's a good interface, to ask plugin developr
>> to include checkbox in each plugin.
>>
>> It should be included only in plugins which affect the installation. For
> example, if OSTF was a plugin it wouldn't need such a checkbox. We can also
> make kind of plugin bootstrap or a sample plugin whcih will include a
> single control.
>
>> The second solution is discussed because it's the most explicit
>> way to solve described problem.
>>
>> Let's try to figure out the solution which will work well for user
>> and for plugin developer.
>>
>> For example, for each plugin generate section on UI with checkbox
>> Like:
>>
> Well, first Nikolay disliked need for a checkbox for any plugin and now
> you want to autogenerate a section. Why woudn't we give plugin writers
> ability to describe the controls themselves? For example, LBaaS would
> require a single checkbox in "Additional Services" section.
>
>>
>> GlusterFS [ ] - disable all of the fields for the section
>> Here is some description of the section, which we can take from
>> description field.
>>
>> IP address [127.0.0.1] - this field provides plugin developer
>>
>> If plugin is set, we add env <-> plugin relation, if it's unset, we
>> delete it.
>> Also when user checks the checkbox, UI will be able to retrieve
>> attributes which plugin provides. But it's not so easy todo, I'm not
>> sure if we can do it with hooks, but it's possible with some separate
>> model and handlers.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh <
>> vkramskikh at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nikolay,
>>>
>>> Currently every thing that can be turned into a plugin (Ceph, vCenter,
>>> Sahara, Murano, Ceilometer) provides a checkbox (or more complicated
>>> controls) for the settings tab. Why change this approach for plugins? The
>>> settings tab (cluster attributes) currently is a SSOT
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Source_of_Truth>, and you want to
>>> ruin it for no reason.
>>>
>>> Of course it makes no sense to generate anything. Checkboxes on the
>>> settings tab can be added using simple YAML mixin and if you want to check
>>> this checkbox to determine whether to perform some action or not and don't
>>> want to write any python code, try to add to plugin's YAML "restrictions"
>>> section which we already have for the settings tab, the wizard and roles.
>>>
>>> 2014-10-08 14:50 GMT+07:00 Nikolay Markov <nmarkov at mirantis.com>:
>>>
>>>> >>> Right now we already have like 2 types of plugins (extensions),
>>>> classified by usage of settings tab:
>>>> >>> 1. Some kind of backend for service (swift/ceph, lvm/ceph,
>>>> ovs/nsx), or hypervisor (lvm/qemu/vmware)
>>>> >>> 2. Self-contained service that just needs to be installed (sahara,
>>>> murano, zabbix)
>>>>
>>>> That's not quite right. In 6.0 and after that there will be a lot of
>>>> small plugins which only modify some config and/or install some
>>>> package. There is nothing to configure here, and I as a plugin
>>>> developer don't even want to know anything about checkboxes on UI. I
>>>> just want two things: role to execute my command on and command
>>>> itself. That's one small YAML.
>>>>
>>>> And autogenerating checkboxes for such plugins on UI is bad, because
>>>> explicit is better than implicit (and all our settings are explicitly
>>>> defined in openstack.yaml).
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak <dshulyak at mirantis.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > If there is no checkboxes (read configuration) and plugin is
>>>> installed - all
>>>> > deployment tasks will be applied
>>>> > to every environment, but why do you think that there will be no
>>>> checkboxes
>>>> > in most cases?
>>>> >
>>>> > Right now we already have like 2 types of plugins (extensions),
>>>> classified
>>>> > by usage of settings tab:
>>>> > 1. Some kind of backend for service (swift/ceph, lvm/ceph, ovs/nsx),
>>>> or
>>>> > hypervisor (lvm/qemu/vmware)
>>>> > 2. Self-contained service that just needs to be installed (sahara,
>>>> murano,
>>>> > zabbix)
>>>> >
>>>> > In 1st case you need to provide shared configuration storage (like
>>>> cluster
>>>> > attributes right now), in order for plugin
>>>> > to be able to exclude part of core workflow from running (not
>>>> installing
>>>> > swift for example).
>>>> > In case if the plugin is self-contained entity, like Sahara, Murano
>>>> right
>>>> > now - checkboxes would be simply required.
>>>> > It works this way right now, and it doesnot look like huge overhead.
>>>> >
>>>> > So what do you think, will it work or no?
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Nikolay Markov <nmarkov at mirantis.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Frankly speaking, I'm not sure on how 1st approach will even work.
>>>> >> What if plugin doesn't provide any checkboxes (and in most cases it
>>>> >> won't)? How should we determine in serializer, which plugins should
>>>> be
>>>> >> applied while generating astute.yaml and tasks.yaml? Should we
>>>> >> autogenerate some stuff for plugins which are not even enabled and do
>>>> >> needless work?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This looks too complicated for me from the backend side, and option
>>>> >> with enabling/disabling plugins in wizard for specific environment
>>>> (we
>>>> >> can invent mechanism to disable them on env which is not deployed
>>>> yet,
>>>> >> besides, for API it's just one PUT) is MUCH simpler and much more
>>>> >> obvious, as I see.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Vitaly Kramskikh
>>>> >> <vkramskikh at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > Hi,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I would go with the 1st approach. The thing I don't like in the 2nd
>>>> >> > approach
>>>> >> > is that we have to make the user enable plugin twice. For example,
>>>> we
>>>> >> > have
>>>> >> > to enable Ceph as a plugin and then add Ceph role to nodes and
>>>> choose
>>>> >> > what
>>>> >> > we want to store in Ceph (images, objects). Why we would need to
>>>> >> > explicitly
>>>> >> > enable Ceph plugin? Let's always show plugin options in wizard and
>>>> >> > settings
>>>> >> > tab, and if the user just doesn't want to enable Ceph, he would
>>>> just
>>>> >> > leave
>>>> >> > all the checkboxes unchecked. The 2nd approach would also lead to
>>>> some
>>>> >> > kind
>>>> >> > of inconsistency in case the user enabled Ceph plugin but left all
>>>> the
>>>> >> > Ceph-related checkboxes unchecked and didn't add Ceph nodes.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > 2014-10-07 21:17 GMT+07:00 Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com>:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Hi,
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> We had a meeting today about plugins on UI, as result of the
>>>> meeting
>>>> >> >> we have two approaches and this approaches affect not only UX but
>>>> >> >> plugins itself.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> 1st - disable/enable plugin on settings tab
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> user installs the plugin
>>>> >> >> creates a cluster
>>>> >> >> configures and enables/disables plugins on settings tab
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> For user it will look like Ceph plugin checkboxes on settings tab,
>>>> >> >> if he enables checkbox, then we pass the parameter to orchestrator
>>>> >> >> as `true`.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Cons:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> plugin developer should define a checkbox in each plugin (for
>>>> plugin
>>>> >> >> disabling/enabling)
>>>> >> >> on the backend we have to enable all of the plugins for
>>>> environment,
>>>> >> >> because user can define any name for his checkbox and we won't be
>>>> able
>>>> >> >> to
>>>> >> >> find it and make appropriate mapping plugin <-> env
>>>> >> >> since all of the plugins are always "enabled" we have to run
>>>> tasks for
>>>> >> >> all
>>>> >> >> of the plugins, and each plugin should parse astute.yaml in order
>>>> to
>>>> >> >> figure
>>>> >> >> out if it's required to run task current script
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Pros:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> it won't require additional setting or step for wizard
>>>> >> >> user will be able to disable plugin after environment creation
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> 2nd - enable plugins in wizard
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> user installs the plugin
>>>> >> >> now he can choose specific plugins for his environment in wizard
>>>> >> >> after cluster is created, he can configure additional parameters
>>>> on
>>>> >> >> settings tab, if plugin provides any
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Cons:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> user won't be able to disable plugin after cluster is created
>>>> >> >> additional step or configuration subcategory in wizard
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Pros:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On backend we always know which plugin is disabled and which is
>>>> >> >> enabled.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> it means we don't provide settings for plugins which are disabled
>>>> >> >> we don't run tasks on slaves if it's not required
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Thanks,
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> >> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > --
>>>> >> > Vitaly Kramskikh,
>>>> >> > Software Engineer,
>>>> >> > Mirantis, Inc.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> >> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Best regards,
>>>> >> Nick Markov
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Nick Markov
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vitaly Kramskikh,
>>> Software Engineer,
>>> Mirantis, Inc.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Vitaly Kramskikh,
> Software Engineer,
> Mirantis, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141008/2a75e00e/attachment.html>