Open Stack

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:01 AM Cédric Jeanneret <cjeanner at redhat.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 5/10/19 11:12 AM, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/8/19 9:07 AM, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/7/19 6:24 PM, Mohammed Naser wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 12:12 PM Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:44 PM Cédric Jeanneret <cjeanner at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We're currently working hard in order to provide a nice way to run
> >>>>> validations within a deploy (aka in-flight validations).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We can already call validations provided by the tripleo-validations
> >>>>> package[1], it's working just fine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now comes the question: "how can we disable the validations?". In
> order
> >>>>> to do that, we propose to use a standard tag in the ansible
> >>>>> roles/playbooks, and to add a "--skip-tags <tag>" when we disable the
> >>>>> validations via the CLI or configuration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After a quick check in the tripleoclient code, there apparently is a
> tag
> >>>>> named "validation", that can already be skipped from within the
> client.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, our questions:
> >>>>> - would the reuse of "validation" be OK?
> >>>>> - if not, what tag would be best in order to avoid confusion?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We also have the idea to allow to disable validations per service.
> For
> >>>>> this, we propose to introduce the following tag:
> >>>>> - validation-<service>, like "validation-nova", "validation-neutron"
> and
> >>>>> so on
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you think about those two additions?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Such as variables, I think we should prefix all our variables and
> tags with tripleo_ or something, to differentiate them from any other
> playbooks our operators could run.
> >>>> I would rather use "tripleo_validations" and
> "tripleo_validation_nova" maybe.
> >>
> >> hmm. what-if we open this framework to a wider audience? For instance,
> >> openshift folks might be interested in some validations (I have Ceph in
> >> mind), and might find weird or even bad to have "tripleo-something"
> >> (with underscore or dashes).
> >> Maybe something more generic?
> >> "vf(-nova)" ?
> >> "validation-framework(-nova)" ?
> >> Or even "opendev-validation(-nova)"
> >> Since there are also a possibility to ask for a new package name for
> >> something more generic without the "tripleo" taint..
> >
> >
> > Can we agree on something? I really like the
> > "opendev-validation(-service)", even if it's a bit long. For automated
> > thins, it's still good IMHO.
>
> *opendev-validation-(service)* will do, since no one raised a voice
> against it :).
>

Cool, works for me!

Cheers,

Brent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190514/441558b6/attachment.html>