Open Stack

Hi guys,

*Romans' questions:*

>> I feel like we should not require user to unpack the plugin before
installing it.
>> Moreover, we may chose to distribute plugins in our own format, which we
>> may potentially change later. E.g. "lbaas-v2.0.fp".

I like the idea of putting plugin installation functionality in fuel
client, which is installed
on master node.
But in the current version plugin installation requires files operations on
the master,
as result we can have problems if user's fuel-client is installed on
another env.
What we can do is to try to determine where fuel-client is installed, if
it's master
node, we can perform installation, if it isn't master node, we can show
user the
message, that in the current version remote plugin installation is not
supported.
In the next versions if we implement plugin manager (which is separate
service
for plugins management) we will be able to do it remotely.

>> How are we planning to distribute fuel plugin builder and its updates?

Yes, as Mike mentioned our plan is to release it on PyPi which is python
packages
repository, so any developer will be able to run `pip install fpb` and get
the tool.

>> What happens if an error occurs during plugin installation?

Plugins installation process is very simple, our plan is to have some kind
of transaction,
to make it atomic.

1. register plugin via API
2. copy the files

In case of error on the 1st step, we can do nothing, in case of error on
the 2nd step,
remove files if there are any, and delete a plugin via rest api. And show
user a message.

>> What happens if an error occurs during plugin execution?

In the first iteration we are going to interrupt deployment if there are
any errors for plugin's
tasks, also we are thinking how to improve it, for example we wanted to
provide a special
flag for each task, like fail_deploument_on_error, and only if it's true,
we fail deployment in
case of failed task. But it can be tricky to implement, it requires to
change the current
orchestrator/nailgun error handling logic. So, I'm not sure if we can
implement this logic in
the first release.

Regarding to meaningful error messages, yes, we want to show the
user, which plugin
causes the error.

>> Shall we consider a separate place in UI (tab) for plugins?

+1 to Mike's answer

>> When are we planning to focus on the 2 plugins which were identified as
must-haves
>> for 6.0? Cinder & LBaaS

For Cinder we are going to implement plugin which configures GlusterFS as
cinder backend,
so, if user has installed GlusterFS cluster, we can configure our cinder to
work with it,
I want to mention that we don't install GlusterFS nodes, we just configure
cinder to work
with user's GlusterFS cluster.
Stanislaw B. already did some scripts which configures cinder to work with
GlusterFS, so
we are on testing stage.

Regarding to LBaaS, Stanislaw B. did multinode implementation, ha
implementation is tricky
and requires some additional work, we are working on it.

Nathan's questions:

Looks like Mike answered UI related questions.

>> Do we offer any kind of validation for settings on plug-ins?   Or some
way to for the developer
>> to ensure that setting that cannot be default or computed get requested
for the plug-in?

Yes, each field can have regexp which is used during the validation.

*Mike's questions:*

>> One minor thing from me, which I forgot to mention during the demo:
verbosity of fpb run. I
>> understand it might sound like a bikeshedding now, but I believe if we
develop it right from
>> the very beginning, then we can save some time later. So I would suggest
normal, short INFO
>> output, and verbose one with --debug.

Agree.

Thanks for your feedback,

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Mike Scherbakov <mscherbakov at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
> I moved this conversation to openstack-dev to get a broader audience,
> since we started to discuss technical details.
>
> Raw notes from demo session:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-neutron-plugins-second-demo.
>
> Let me start answering on a few questions below from Roman & Nathan.
>
>> How are we planning to distribute fuel plugin builder and its updates?
>> Ideally, it should be available externally (outside of master node). I
>> don't want us to repeat the same mistake as we did with Fuel client, which
>> doesn't seem to be usable as an external dependency.
>
> The plan was to have Fuel Plugin Builder (fpb) on PyPI. Ideally it should
> be backward compatible with older Fuel release, i.e. when there is Fuel 7.0
> out, you should be still able to create plugin for Fuel 6.0. If that it is
> going to be overcomplicated - I suggested to produce fpb for every Fuel
> release, and name it like fpb60, fpb61, fpb70, etc. Then it becomes easier
> to support and maintain plugin builders for certain versions of Fuel.
> Speaking about Fuel Client - there is no mistake. It's been discussed
> dozens of times, it's just lack of resources to make it on PyPI as well as
> to fix a few other things. I hope it could be done as part of efforts from
> [2].
>
> - Perhaps we have a separate settings tab just for Plug-Ins?    For some
>> complex plug-ins, they might require a dedicated tab.   If we have too many
>> tabs it could get messy.
>
>
>
>> Shall we consider a separate place in UI (tab) for plugins? Settings tab
>> seems to be overloaded.
>
>
> This is certainly under planning and discussion for future releases. See
> [1], for example. For 6.0, we agreed that we can just extend existing
> Settings tab with plugins-related fields.
>
> One minor thing from me, which I forgot to mention during the demo:
> verbosity of fpb run. I understand it might sound like a bikeshedding now,
> but I believe if we develop it right from the very beginning, then we can
> save some time later. So I would suggest normal, short INFO output, and
> verbose one with --debug.
>
> Thanks for feedback folks!!!
>
> [1]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg37196.html
> [2]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg37001.html
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nathan Trueblood <ntrueblood at mirantis.com>
> Date: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:24 AM
> Subject: Re: plugins
>
> Agreed - I thought this initial PoC was great.
>
> A few initial thoughts about settings in the UI and plug-in in general:
>
> - Perhaps we have a separate settings tab just for Plug-Ins?    For some
> complex plug-ins, they might require a dedicated tab.   If we have too many
> tabs it could get messy.
> - It seems like we should consider how we handle the VMWare settings in
> light of plug-ins as well.   Since with VMWare we have a lot of setting to
> configure and settings validation.
> - Do we offer any kind of validation for settings on plug-ins?   Or some
> way to for the developer to ensure that setting that cannot be default or
> computed get requested for the plug-in?
>
> - We need to think carefully about both the plug-in developer experience
> (how hard to test, get error messages, etc) and the experience for the user
> who deploys the plug-in into an environment.
>
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Roman Alekseenkov <
> ralekseenkov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I watched both videos (creating a file with the text from UI &&
>> installing and starting a service).
>>
>> It looks pretty good!! Some initial feedback/questions:
>>
>>    1. I like the fact that fuel plugin builder appends version to the
>>    name and makes it "fuel-awesome-plugin-1.2.3.tar". The approach is similar
>>    to Java/Maven and is a good one.
>>    2. I feel like we should not require user to unpack the plugin before
>>    installing it. Moreover, we may chose to distribute plugins in our own
>>    format, which we may potentially change later. E.g. "lbaas-v2.0.fp". I'd
>>    rather stick with two actions:
>>       - Assembly (externally): fpb --build <name>
>>       - Installation (on master node): fuel --install-plugin <name>
>>    3. How are we planning to distribute fuel plugin builder and its
>>    updates? Ideally, it should be available externally (outside of master
>>    node). I don't want us to repeat the same mistake as we did with Fuel
>>    client, which doesn't seem to be usable as an external dependency.
>>    4. How do we handle errors?
>>       - What happens if an error occurs during plugin installation?
>>       - What happens if an error occurs during plugin execution? Does it
>>       (should it?) fail the deployment? Will we show user an error message with
>>       the name of plugin that failed?
>>       5. Shall we consider a separate place in UI (tab) for plugins?
>>    Settings tab seems to be overloaded.
>>    6. When are we planning to focus on the 2 plugins which were
>>    identified as must-haves for 6.0? Cinder & LBaaS
>>
>> Once again, great job guys!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Mike Scherbakov <
>> mscherbakov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Evgeny, excellent work!
>>> Roman, I believe we are "green" with the feature. Watch yourself.
>>>
>>> Mike Scherbakov
>>> #mihgen
>>> On Oct 17, 2014 8:25 PM, "Evgeniy L" <eli at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys, here are the videos from the demo
>>>>
>>>> Part 1
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7I3b5vI7ZYXUGY1QVYyX3NLTWc/view
>>>>
>>>> Part 2
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7I3b5vI7ZYXWkRmV05fT1VEQkk/view
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> --
> Mike Scherbakov
> #mihgen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141020/9d7f3cfd/attachment.html>