Open Stack

Folks,
here is what I think:
1) I suggest to fix what is broken now. So that people who come across
examples would not have to deal with issues. We may debate for other few
days (hopefully not more), and all plugin devs will be suffering during
this time. Also, according to Matt,

> I should add that this is the only automated daily test that will verify
that our plugin framework actually works.
simply means that we must fix it in order to catch any possible regressions
we may introduce later (if not already).

2) I like idea Ilya K. has proposed. To rephrase it (to put extra accent
into it and get feedback), we may not need to have example plugins.
However, we can have fpb generating template plugin, with commented code in
there. If you uncomment, you a get a comprehensive example of a working
plugin.
To ensure that uncommented code would actually work, we must have a test
for it (which would uncomment - run - ensure everything deploys).

3) Ideally, we need to catch issues at pre-commit stage. So I'd suggest to
think if there is a way to have tests, which would run such examples
against pluggable framework for every change to the framework, so that we
can have -1 right away if something goes wrong.

I've started separate thread on general thoughts about backward
compatibility and multiple releases support, which actually affects
examples: [1]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088921.html

Thanks,

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:59 AM Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com> wrote:

> Because it doesn't make much sense for a plugin developer to have scripts
> to build packages for installation on slave nodes. For default template
> it's better to have something minimalistic and the rest of the tasks
> commented, otherwise it may create a lot of confusion.
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Ilya Kutukov <ikutukov at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Talking about templates I mean plugins generated by FBP from the
>> `templates` folder using command you mentioned above.
>>
>> Why not to extend (not replace) template-generated plugins with
>> additional data to provide right coverage?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ilya,
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "templates" the plugin which is create by just "fpb
>>> --create plugin-name"?
>>> It doesn't cover enough, package installation and all range of tasks
>>> executions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Ilya Kutukov <ikutukov at mirantis.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Igor, i completely agree, actually plugin examples is almost a
>>>> copy-paste.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing i see useful in the built plugins example is the ability
>>>> to point some code lines, discussing plugin design and writing
>>>> documentation. Why not to generate this examples automatically from
>>>> templates?
>>>>
>>>> Also, as developer and administrator i love to use examples/templates
>>>> where all essential settings and options are persist but commented (e.g.
>>>> ProFTPD or Apache) and i could uncomment and copy-paste them not being
>>>> afraid of typos. Also it allows to keep documentation actual and head
>>>> documentation small. Duplication of inline documentation between examples
>>>> and templates making things more weird and overshadows idea of inline
>>>> documentation itself.
>>>>
>>>> Eugeny, why not to run integration tests against plugins generated from
>>>> templates? It's will be even better integration tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > and really lowering barriers for people who just begin create
>>>>> plugins.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. First, people usually create them via running `fpb --create
>>>>> plugin-name` that generates plugin boilerplate. And that boilerplate
>>>>> won't contain that changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, if people ain't smart enough to change few lines in
>>>>> `metadata.yaml` of generated boilerplate to make it work with latest
>>>>> Fuel, maybe it's better for them to do not develop plugins at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin
>>>>> <sbogatkin at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>> > +1 to maintain example plugins. It is easy enough and really lowering
>>>>> > barriers for people who just begin create plugins.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Matthew Mosesohn <
>>>>> mmosesohn at mirantis.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Igor,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It seems you are proposing an IKEA approach to plugins. Take Fuel's
>>>>> >> example plugin, add in the current Fuel release, and then build it.
>>>>> We
>>>>> >> maintained these plugins in the past, but now it should a manual
>>>>> step
>>>>> >> to test it out on the current release.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> What would be a more ideal situation that meets the needs of users
>>>>> and
>>>>> >> QA? Right now we have failed tests until we can decide on a solution
>>>>> >> that works for everybody.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <
>>>>> ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> > No, this is a wrong road to go.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > What if in Fuel 10 we drop v1 plugins support? What should we do?
>>>>> >> > Remove v1 example from source tree? That doesn't seem good to me.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Example plugins are only examples. The list of supported releases
>>>>> must
>>>>> >> > be maintained on system test side, and system tests must inject
>>>>> that
>>>>> >> > information into plugin's metadata.yaml and test it.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Again, I don't say we shouldn't test plugins. I say, tests should
>>>>> be
>>>>> >> > responsible for preparing plugins. I can say even more: tests
>>>>> should
>>>>> >> > not rely on what is produced by plugins, since it's something that
>>>>> >> > could be changed and tests start failing.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Swann Croiset <
>>>>> scroiset at mirantis.com>
>>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>> >> >> IMHO it is important to keep plugin examples and keep testing
>>>>> them,
>>>>> >> >> very
>>>>> >> >> valuable for plugin developers.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> For example, I've encountered [0] the case where "plugin as role"
>>>>> >> >> feature
>>>>> >> >> wasn't easily testable with fuel-qa because not compliant with
>>>>> the last
>>>>> >> >> plugin data structure,
>>>>> >> >> and more recently we've spotted a regression [1] with
>>>>> "vip-reservation"
>>>>> >> >> feature introduced by a change in nailgun.
>>>>> >> >> These kind of issues are time consuming for plugin developers and
>>>>> >> >> can/must
>>>>> >> >> be avoided by testing them.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> I don't even understand why the question is raised while fuel
>>>>> plugins
>>>>> >> >> are
>>>>> >> >> supposed to be supported and more and more used [3], even by
>>>>> murano [4]
>>>>> >> >> ...
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1543962
>>>>> >> >> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1551320
>>>>> >> >> [3]
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-February/085636.html
>>>>> >> >> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/286310/
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Matthew Mosesohn
>>>>> >> >> <mmosesohn at mirantis.com>
>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> Hi Fuelers,
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> I would like to bring your attention a dilemma we have here. It
>>>>> seems
>>>>> >> >>> that there is a dispute as to whether we should maintain the
>>>>> releases
>>>>> >> >>> list for example plugins[0]. In this case, this is for adding
>>>>> version
>>>>> >> >>> 9.0 to the list.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> Right now, we run a swarm test that tries to install the example
>>>>> >> >>> plugin and do a deployment, but it's failing only for this
>>>>> reason. I
>>>>> >> >>> should add that this is the only automated daily test that will
>>>>> verify
>>>>> >> >>> that our plugin framework actually works. During the Mitaka
>>>>> >> >>> development  cycle, we already had an extended period where
>>>>> plugins
>>>>> >> >>> were broken[1]. Removing this test (or leaving it permanently
>>>>> red,
>>>>> >> >>> which is effectively the same), would raise the risk to any
>>>>> member of
>>>>> >> >>> the Fuel community who depends on plugins actually working.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> The other impact of abandoning maintenance of example plugins
>>>>> is that
>>>>> >> >>> it means that a given interested Fuel Plugin developer would
>>>>> not be
>>>>> >> >>> able to easily get started with plugin development. It might
>>>>> not be
>>>>> >> >>> inherently obvious to add the current Fuel release to the
>>>>> >> >>> metadata.yaml file and it would likely discourage such a user.
>>>>> In this
>>>>> >> >>> case, I would propose that we remove example plugins from
>>>>> fuel-plugins
>>>>> >> >>> GIT repo if they are not maintained. Non-functioning code is
>>>>> worse
>>>>> >> >>> than deleted code in my opinion.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> Please share your opinions and let's decide which way to go
>>>>> with this
>>>>> >> >>> bug[2]
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> [0]
>>>>> https://github.com/openstack/fuel-plugins/tree/master/examples
>>>>> >> >>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1544505
>>>>> >> >>> [2] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1548340
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> Best Regards,
>>>>> >> >>> Matthew Mosesohn
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>>> >> >>> 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
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>>> >> > 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
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > with best regards,
>>>>> > Stan.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>>> > 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
-- 
Mike Scherbakov
#mihgen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160310/1b92ac67/attachment.html>