Open Stack

Hey Sergii –



I don’t know if I agree with the statement that it’s bad practice to mix
core and plugin functionality.  From a user standpoint, if I’m trying to
deploy something like Contrail, I would like to see all of my Networking
configuration options together (including the Contrail plugin) so that I
can make an intelligent selection in the context of networking.



When plugins are not related to a specific space, I personally as a user
would expect to see a generic “Plugins” grouping in the Settings tab to
reduce sub-group proliferation (I probably don’t need a sub-group for every
plugin).



I know that in conversations with Patrick (cc’d for input) he has mentioned
wanting to have the plugins define the space they should be displayed in,
as well, including spaces where core component settings are made.



I agree that name validation could probably be improved – the names right
now correspond either to the plugin name or to the name of the section that
existed in the previous version.  This initial iteration breaks down
subgroups but does not change any of the section naming conventions or do
anything else to make the Settings space more manageable.



Sheena



*From:* Sergii Golovatiuk [mailto:sgolovatiuk at mirantis.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:24 AM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <
openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Feedback



Sheena, I still have concerns regarding #3. I am sending attachment how
it's implemented. Firstly, it's bad practice to mix core and plugin
functionality. Also we do not validate names. When there are several
plugins it's very hard to find all of them

I am giving a sketch how it should be IMO


--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser



On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Sheena Gregson <sgregson at mirantis.com>
wrote:

Hey Sergii –



This is excellent feedback, thank you for taking the time to provide your
thoughts.



#1 I agree that the documentation lag is challenging – I’m not sure how to
best address this.  We could potentially prioritize updates to the Plugin
SDK for soon-to-be-released features ahead of the standard release notes
and user guide updates to ensure that plugin developers have access to this
information earlier?  A number of the docs team members will be getting
together in late August to discuss how to improve documentation, I will add
this as a topic if we don’t feel there is good resolution on the mailing
list.

*+Alexander/Evgeny to cc for their input*



#3 Settings tab is getting a facelift in 7.0 and there are now subgroups in
the tab which should make it significantly easier for a user to find plugin
settings.  Each plugin will create a new sub-group in the Settings tab,
like Access (and others) in the screenshot below.





I don’t have any insight on the GitHub issues, so I will wait for others to
weigh in on your concerns there.



Sheena



*From:* Sergii Golovatiuk [mailto:sgolovatiuk at mirantis.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:51 AM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <
openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
*Subject:* [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Feedback



Hi,

I have started digging into plugins recently. There are many positive
things though I would like to point to some problem areas

1. Documentation

a. It doesn't include the features of 7.0. There are many outstanding
features, though I needed to ping the developers to ask how these features
work. It means that it's almost impossible to develop plugins for upcoming
releases. The external developer needs to wait for documentation so it
creates a lag between release and plugin release.

b. in [1] the statement about 'For Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS' should be extended
to 14.04. Also we don't need to add PATCH version as 12.04.2 is equivalent
to 12.04

c. There is no documentation how to install fpb from github master branch.
It's very useful for developers who want to use latest version. We should
add something

2. Github repository [2] is messed up

a. We are doing the same mistake putting all things into one basket. There
should be 2 repositories. One for examples and one for fpb. What's the goal
of keeping fpb in directory and examples on top? This breaks a couple of
things

b. I cannot build fpm with simple

pip install git+https://

Instead I am forced to do

git clone https://

cd fuel-plugins

pip install .



c. There is no tags as I can see only stable/6.0

d. There are no tests to improve code quality pep8 flask8, code coverage

e. Repository doesn't follow community standards.



3. Setting tab

When plugin is installed, it's very hard to find in. In setting tab it's
somewhere between A and Z

How is user supposed to find it? There should be a separator between Core
features and plugins. User must easily find, configure, enable/disable them.

P.S. I am asking everyone to add own concerns so we'll be able to make a
plan how to address them.

Thank you in advance.


[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Plugins#Installation
[2] https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-plugins
--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser


__________________________________________________________________________
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/20150729/7bf05c01/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12799 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150729/7bf05c01/attachment.jpg>