Open Stack

On 11/10/2015 10:43 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 05:26 AM, John Trowbridge wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/09/2015 07:44 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>> Hi OOO'ers, hopefully the subject caught your attentions :)
>>>
>>> Currently, tripleoclient exposes several commands in "openstack
>>> baremetal" and "openstack baremetal introspection" namespaces belonging
>>> to ironic and ironic-inspector accordingly. TL;DR of this email is to
>>> deprecate them and move to TripleO-specific namespaces. Read on to know
>>> why.
>>>
>>> Problem
>>> =======
>>>
>>> I realized that we're doing a wrong thing when people started asking me
>>> why "baremetal introspection start" and "baremetal introspection bulk
>>> start" behave so differently (the former is from ironic-inspector, the
>>> latter is from tripleoclient). The problem with TripleO commands is that
>>> they're highly opinionated workflows commands, but there's no way a user
>>> can distinguish them from general-purpose ironic/ironic-inspector
>>> commands. The way some of them work is not generic enough ("baremetal
>>> import"), or uses different defaults from an upstream project
>>> ("configure boot"), or does something completely unacceptable upstream
>>> (e.g. the way "introspection bulk start" deals with node states).
>>>
>>> So, here are commands that tripleoclient exposes with my comments:
>>>
>>> 1. baremetal instackenv validate
>>>
>>>  This command assumes there's an "baremetal instackenv" object, while
>>> instackenv is a tripleo-specific file format.
>>>
>>> 2. baremetal import
>>>
>>>  This command supports a limited subset of ironic drivers and driver
>>> properties, only those known to os-cloud-config.
>>>
>>> 3. baremetal introspection bulk start
>>>
>>>  This command does several bad (IMO) things:
>>>  a. Messes with ironic node states
>>>  b. Operates implicitly on all nodes (in a wrong state)
>>>  c. Defaults to polling
>>>
>>
>> I have considered this whole command as a bug for a while now. I
>> understand what we were trying to do and why, but it is pretty bad to
>> hijack another project's namespace with a command that would get a firm
>> -2 there.
>>
>>> 4. baremetal show capabilities
>>>
>>>  This is the only commands that is generic enough and could actually
>>> make it to ironicclient itself.
>>>
>>> 5. baremetal introspection bulk status
>>>
>>>  See "bulk start" above.
>>>
>>> 6. baremetal configure ready state
>>>
>>>  First of all, this and the next command use "baremetal configure"
>>> prefix. I would not promise we'll never start using it in ironic,
>>> breaking the whole TripleO.
>>>
>>>  Seconds, it's actually DELL-specific.
>>>
>>> 7. baremetal configure boot
>>>
>>>  This one is nearly ok, but it defaults to local boot, which is not an
>>> upstream default. Default values for images may not work outside of
>>> TripleO as well.
>>>
>>> Proposal
>>> ========
>>>
>>> As we already have "openstack undercloud" and "openstack overcloud"
>>> prefixes for TripleO, I suggest we move these commands under "openstack
>>> overcloud nodes" namespace. So we end up with:
>>>
>>>  overcloud nodes import
>>>  overcloud nodes configure ready state --drac
>>>  overcloud nodes configure boot
>>>
>>> As you see, I require an explicit --drac argument for "ready state"
>>> command. As to the remaining commands:
>>>
>>> 1. baremetal introspection status --all
>>>
>>>   This is fine to move to inspector-client, as inspector knows which
>>> nodes are/were on introspection. We'll need a new API though.
>>>
>>> 2. baremetal show capabilities
>>>
>>>   We'll have this or similar command in ironic, hopefully this cycle.
>>>
>>> 3. overcloud nodes introspect --poll --allow-available
>>>
>>>   I believe that we need to make 2 things explicit in this replacement
>>> for "introspection bulk status": polling and operating on "available"
>>> nodes.
>>
>> I am not totally convinced that we gain a huge amount by hiding the
>> state manipulation in this command. We need to move that logic to
>> tripleo-common anyways, so I think it is worth considering splitting it
>> from the introspect command.
>>
>> Dmitry and I discussed briefly at summit having the ability to pass a
>> list of nodes to the inspector client for introspection as well. So if
>> we separated out the bulk state manipulation bit, we could just use that.
>>
>> I get that this is going in the opposite direction of the original
>> intention of lowering the amount of commands needed to get a functional
>> deployment. However, I think that goal is better solved elsewhere
>> (tripleo.sh, some ansible playbooks, etc.). Instead it would be nice if
>> the tripleoclient was more transparent.
> 
> -2.  This is exactly the thing that got us to a place where our GUI was
> unusable.  Business logic (and state management around Ironic node
> inspection is just that) has to live in the API so all consumers can
> take advantage of it.  Otherwise everyone has to reimplement it
> themselves and anything but the developer-used CLI interfaces (like
> tripleo.sh) fall behind, and we end up right back where we are today.
> 
> It's not simply about reducing the number of commands to deploy a cloud,
> it's also (and more importantly) about codifying the process behind an
> API that can be used by the CLI, GUI, and any other future clients
> someone wants to write.

I think you misunderstand my suggestion. The basic premise is that we
have to move the state manipulation logic into tripleo-common along with
the inspection logic, so that is consumable via the REST API. At that
point, what is gained by having it mixed together?

It is the mixing of these two bits of logic that I object to. We are
consuming two totally separate service APIs (ironic and inspector) in
the same command in a way that is not transparent to end users.

More so, it limits our ability to take better implementations from
upstream as they become available. The ability to do bulk inspection
will definitely land before the ability to do bulk state manipulation in
Ironic.

So we are in total agreement on the fact that the process needs to be
codified behind an API. My suggestion is just that it does not need to
be a SINGLE API call for these two very different operations. Otherwise,
why not just have `openstack baremetal go` that just does all the steps
we currently have in the baremetal namespace. It is this part (the
sequencing of commands or API calls into a workflow with no logic) that
I think is better handled by
tripleo.sh/ansible/insert_workflow_management_tool_of_choice.

>>
>> Thanks Dmitry for starting this discussion.
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>