Open Stack

+1 to extract validators for granular deployment tasks

Dmitry, do you mean that we should create some cli to generate graph
picture? Or just make it as a module and then use it in Nailgun?

Thanks,

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <dshulyak at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> +1 for separate tasks/graph validation library
>
> In my opinion we may even migrate graph visualizer to this library, cause
> it is most usefull during development and to demand installed fuel with
> nailgun feels a bit suboptimal
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Kamil Sambor <ksambor at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I want to discuss separating validation from our repositories to one. On
>> this moment in fuel we have validation for  granular deployment tasks in 3
>> separate repositories so we need to maintain very similar code in all of
>> them. New idea that we discussed with guys assumes to keep this code in one
>> place. Below are more details.
>>
>> Schema validator should be in separate repo, we will install validator in
>> fuel-plugin, fuel-lib, fuel-nailgun. Validator should support versions
>> (return schemas and validate them for selected version).
>> Reasons why we should have validation in all three repositories:
>> nailgun: we need validation in api because we are able to send our own
>> tasks to nailgun and execute them (now we validate type of tasks in
>> deployment graph and  during installation of plugin)
>> fuel-library: we need to check if tasks schema is correct defined in
>> task.yaml files and if tasks not create cycles (actually we do both things)
>> fuel-plugin: we need to check if defined tasks are supported by selected
>> version of nailgun (now we check if task type are the same with hardcoded
>> types in fuel-plugin, we not update this part since a while and now there
>> are only 2 type of tasks: shell and puppet)
>> With versioning we shouldn't have conflicts between nailgun serialization
>> and fuel-plugin because plugin will be able to use schemas for specified
>> version of nailgun.
>>
>> As a core reviewers of repositories we should keep the same reviewers as
>> we have in fuel-core.
>>
>> How validator should looks like:
>> separate repo, to install using pip
>> need to return correct schema for selected version of fuel
>> should be able to validate schema for selected version and ignore
>> selected fields
>> validate graph from selected tasks
>>
>> Pros and cons of this solution:
>> pros:
>> one place to keep validation
>> less error prone - we will eliminate errors caused by not updating one of
>> the repos, also it will be easy to test if changes are correct and
>> compatible with all repos
>> easier to develop (less changes in cases when we add new type of task or
>> we change schemas of tasks - we edit just one place)
>> easy distribution of code between repositories and easy to use by
>> external developers
>> cons:
>> new repository that needs to be managed (and included into CI/QA/release
>> cycle)
>> new dependency for fuel-library, fuel-web, fuel-plugins (fuel plugin
>> builder) of which developer need to be aware of
>>
>> Please comments and give opinions.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kamil Sambor
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20150218/f546a2c3/attachment.html>