Hi Francisco, I also have the same impression about sort of ambiguity and decisions not made from the beginning. I've worked on both the tooling side and the backend, and believe me it is not just "fix as soon as happen" because, in the meantime, there are other things/priorities to be after. To be fair, the tooling guys are already after a big task, and I see their need to avoid problems as much as possible. And that me saying "their need" somehow suggests that there is actually this sort of separation, due to the completely different architectural scope, technical stack, etc. Maybe first of all we should clearly identify all those details
Il giorno ven 10 mag 2024 alle ore 14:56 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < [email protected]> ha scritto: > Alex, > I'm just asking for a real use case example of how a change in the back end > can disrupt more the work of tooling than a change in KIE API can disrupt > runtime work. > I believe we are creating an artificial distinction between tooling and the > rest of the software based on historical reasons that no longer apply once > we are moving to a single release. > Either we really justify that distinction on technical ground (which so > far, despite tons of text, in my humble opinion, has not been done) or we > change our mindset to the fact that we are now within a single release > paradigm. > And, recurring to history, as some wise man used to say, " A house divided > cannot stand" ;) > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 2:50 PM Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Francisco, > > > > You're minimizing the disruption in others' planned workload. You > > can't just break other's work and say that sooner the better.. if > > others have to fix, it's up to others define when to fix. > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 8:48 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Gabrielle, > > > I think a real use case example where a change in the backend breaks > > > tooling work in a way they are fully blocked. > > > And, I would argue, if such thing ever occur, then as soon as we detect > > > that, the better. > > > Just an example, let's say we change a REST endpoint in a way, runtime > > > tooling stops working, the sooner we realize that change is not > > compatible > > > with the tool, the better. > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Gabriele Cardosi < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Enrique, > > > > I'm ignoring anything else, but regarding > > > > > > > > "The other topic you are talking is the build. The question was > > summarized > > > > by Francisco.if we build the repos in order, does kie tool able to > > build > > > > properly with the snapshots built in the pipeline or does need > > additional > > > > steps ?" > > > > > > > > I think the core of the problem is the following: > > > > when we backender made a modification (e.g. in drools repo) we are > > somehow > > > > responsible to fix eventual break downstream (e.g. kogito-runtimes, > > > > kogito-examples, etc), but we completely ignores the tooling, and we > > won't > > > > probably be able to fix it. So, the tooling guys must rely on some > > "stable" > > > > version, otherwise we could break their work on a daily basis. > > > > This is more or less the situation I found when I joined: the drools > > built > > > > was separated from the drools-wb one, sometimes modification on > drools > > repo > > > > broke drools-wb, and then they decided to pipeline the twos, to have > > > > immediate recognition, and fix, of that (at that time, our drools-wb > > job > > > > was to build drools every morning and then start working on > drools-wb: > > if > > > > something get broken in drools-wb, then we pinged drool devs to > > understand > > > > reason and eventually make fix). > > > > The solutions I see for our situation are: > > > > > > > > 1. keep tooling depend on some stable release, preserving > > independence > > > > from backender changes > > > > 2. enforce/improve cooperation between backender and tooling guys, > > so > > > > that as soon as some breaking change is made by the former, the > > latter > > > > can > > > > immediately fix > > > > > > > > > > > > Side notes: > > > > > > > > 1. About point 1, I do not think it breaks the "single product" > > rule, > > > > because at release time everything should be aligned > > > > 2. About point 2, I'm not sure it is so easy to do > > > > 3. IMO this is completely transparent regarding where the code > > lives, > > > > and "single CI" means a single build system that properly manages > > the > > > > code > > > > to build > > > > > > > > Sorry if all the above was already clear and obvious to everyone 😀 > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > Gabriele > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 10 mag 2024 alle ore 12:08 Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > > > [email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex > > > > > > > > > > You are mixing stuff here Alex. > > > > > > > > > > PR checks are there for guarding that nothing breaks when somebody > is > > > > > pushing code. If kie tools can break because is not there it means > we > > > > have > > > > > a problem in there. Keep in mind i am not talking about the cause > why > > > > they > > > > > are missing checks in our PR, it could be resources it could be > > something > > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > The other topic you are talking is the build. The question was > > summarized > > > > > by Francisco.if we build the repos in order, does kie tool able to > > build > > > > > properly with the snapshots built in the pipeline or does need > > additional > > > > > steps ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Publishing artifacts is a whole different topic from the build. > > Regarding > > > > > sync multiple deployments from the multirepo build i guess it could > > be a > > > > > problem, but also that is not the question here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El vie, 10 may 2024, 11:55, Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > Tiago already provided a in-depth explanation of the issue in > this > > ML, > > > > > > that is summarized in the circular dependency thread [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TL;DR: **Today** KIE-Tools is not part of any PR checks in the > > runtime > > > > > > repositories (drools, optaplanner, runtimes and apps) - so a > > change in > > > > > > those repos can break KIE Tools. If we were to continue to use > > > > > > SNAPSHOTs, we need unify to a single CI that would include all > > > > > > repositories - including KIE Tools. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/58xm7pqdyztf7qztmhvntf8wdmvfx7jx > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 5:15 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tiago, > > > > > > > I would argue that, being all the repos part of the same > release, > > > > > mutable > > > > > > > snapshot is perfectly acceptable. As it currently happens > between > > > > > > Runtimes > > > > > > > repo and Drools repo (which have the Kie api) and Apps repo and > > > > > Runtimes > > > > > > > repo. I, as I believe Enrique (at least if what I understood > > from his > > > > > > > e-mail) , do not understand why tooling should be different in > > that > > > > > > regard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 1:26 AM Tiago Bento < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zanini and Enrique, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if I'm making it sound differently, but everything > I'm > > > > > saying > > > > > > > > is also aiming towards a healthy CI. Not only for SonataFlow > or > > > > > Tools, > > > > > > > > though. For all of Apache KIE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My main point is that mutable Maven SNAPSHOTs are harming us, > > > > giving > > > > > a > > > > > > > > false impression of synchronization between the repos. It's > an > > > > "easy > > > > > > > > way out" we've been historically abusing, IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the best advantages of having multiple repos is that > > they > > > > can > > > > > > > > be individually developed, tested, and managed. However, by > > using > > > > > > > > Maven SNAPSHOTs as the synchronization mechanism, we can't > > > > guarantee > > > > > > > > that, since repos become broken on any given day. More than > > that, > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > impossible to go "back in time" on our development branches, > > since > > > > > the > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOT version will always point to latest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please read this section from the guidelines of the SciJava > > project > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/scijava/pom-scijava-base/blob/main/README.md. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Reproducible builds. This rule means no SNAPSHOT > > dependencies, no > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOT parents, and no SNAPSHOT plugin versions. A snapshot > > > > version > > > > > > > > is not immutable, which means that code which depends on a > > snapshot > > > > > > > > may build today, but not build tomorrow, if the snapshot is > > later > > > > > > > > changed. The best way to avoid this conundrum is to never > > depend on > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOT versions. Snapshot are best used for testing only; > > they > > > > can > > > > > > > > be used transiently, but their use should never make it onto > > the > > > > main > > > > > > > > integration branch (e.g., main or master) of a project. See > > also > > > > > Using > > > > > > > > snapshot couplings during development at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://imagej.net/develop/architecture#using-snapshot-couplings-during-development > > > > > > > > ." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This summarizes very well the problem I'm trying to convey > > here. Of > > > > > > > > course, their words are much more clear than all the > > explanations I > > > > > > > > tried giving so far. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 9:43 AM ricardo zanini fernandes > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiago, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, this is a major problem in our current structure > that > > we > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > another thread to discuss. For my proposal is to at least > > have a > > > > > > health > > > > > > > > > cloud build platform. We can completely remove UI from our > > images > > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > SonataFlow space and keep the consoles in kie-tools. Once > we > > > > solve > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > deep > > > > > > > > > structural problem we have, we can evaluate it better. What > > we > > > > > can't > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > be behind and not release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The template image is pretty useful if you really want to > > test > > > > the > > > > > > DevUI > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > the image. You can easily pull the container file and build > > the > > > > > image > > > > > > > > > during your integration tests and run the tests you need. > We > > can > > > > do > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > same in the image. I don't see a waste of resources, but > as a > > > > > > temporary > > > > > > > > > alternative until we figure out the deeper problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the moment, everything "tools" related is in a single > > repo and > > > > > the > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > components are scattered in many other repos. We have to > > decide > > > > if > > > > > we > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > mono repos (infra-oriented) or context repos > > (feature-oriented). > > > > We > > > > > > can't > > > > > > > > > have both otherwise the mono repos will start to drag > others > > to > > > > it, > > > > > > as we > > > > > > > > > are seeing happening. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So IMO, we need first to sit down together and have a new > > repo > > > > > > structure > > > > > > > > > design, perhaps based on components. We need to evaluate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the time being, we need to move forward at least and I > > can > > > > live > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > integration tests at the end of the line using final > > > > versions/built > > > > > > > > > versions of the DevUI if needed for SonataFlow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 10:32 AM ricardo zanini fernandes < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Enrique! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The images are using SNAPSHOTS from apps/runtimes > > currently. > > > > > There > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > decision in the past to build apps in the images from the > > > > > > > > main/versioned > > > > > > > > > > branch. We are changing this to use SNAPSHOT/versioned > > > > artifacts > > > > > > > > published > > > > > > > > > > in Maven. About kie-tools, I don't know either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use immutable snapshots (weekly, nightlies) > > instead. I'm > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > against it. But we do need those for integration tests or > > at > > > > > least > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > robust > > > > > > > > > > CI platform to do integration without snapshots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 5:07 AM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez > < > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Tiago, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> I think the discussion is related to the graph > dependency > > for > > > > > > now. So > > > > > > > > > >> I would keep that in mind. Anyway I am kinda surprised > > about > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > >> concepts like (mutable snapshots and using snapshot > > published > > > > > > > > > >> timestamps like they are final). > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Now I think I understand where the problem lies now; so > > > > > basically > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > >> we had the proper graph dependency project built based > on > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > >> snapshots everything would build just ok. So my question > > is > > > > > pretty > > > > > > > > > >> simple, why is it not possible for kie tools or kogito > > images > > > > to > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > >> the maven snapshot concept and point out to the last > > snapshot > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > >> (either local or remote) like other maven projects work. > > Is > > > > > there > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > >> limitation there ? > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> El mié, 8 may 2024 a las 22:30, Tiago Bento (< > > > > > > [email protected]>) > > > > > > > > > >> escribió: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Zanini! Welcome back, hope you had a great time > > during > > > > your > > > > > > PTO. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > If I understand correctly, the way you see the > > integration > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > >> > repos relies heavily on timestamped SNAPSHOTs. This > way: > > > > > > > > > >> > 1. `kogito-images` would stop building `kogito-apps`, > > and > > > > > would > > > > > > rely > > > > > > > > > >> > on timestamped SNAPSHOTs being published from > > > > > > > > > >> > `drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps`. > > > > > > > > > >> > 2. `kie-tools` would start publishing timestamped > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > for > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > UI > > > > > > > > > >> > components, so they would be consumed downstream by > > > > > > > > > >> > `kogito-serverless-operator`. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > If that's what you mean, let me elaborate on some of > the > > > > > > > > consequences > > > > > > > > > >> > of this integration model, where we stop using the > > mutable > > > > > > > > > >> > 999-SNAPSHOT and start relying more on timestamped > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > >> > cross-repo synchronization: > > > > > > > > > >> > a. Cross-repo PRs would not be possible anymore, > > depending > > > > on > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > >> > repos are involved in the ensemble. This would create > > > > > boundaries > > > > > > > > > >> > between certain groups of our repos, namely: > > > > > > > > > >> > drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps --> > > > > > > kogito-images --> > > > > > > > > > >> > kie-tools, --> kogito-serverless-operator. So 4 > > "independent > > > > > > > > > >> > clusters". > > > > > > > > > >> > b. kogito-images, kie-tools, and > > kogito-serverless-operator, > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > >> > timestamped SNAPSHOTs between themselves, would make > the > > > > most > > > > > > > > upstream > > > > > > > > > >> > of the three (in this case, `kogito-images`), to be > the > > one > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > >> > what timestamped SNAPSHOT version we should use for > its > > > > > upstream > > > > > > > > > >> > dependencies > > > > (drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps). > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > >> > details: If `kogito-images` depends on > > > > > > > > > >> > `drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps` using > > > > version > > > > > > > > > >> > 999-20240501, that's the version `kie-tools` and > > > > > > > > > >> > `kogito-serverless-operator` need to use as well, as > the > > > > > > > > > >> > drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps would > > come > > > > > > > > transitively > > > > > > > > > >> > from the `kogito-images` dependency these two repos > > would > > > > > have. > > > > > > > > This, > > > > > > > > > >> > IMHO, causes a lot of confusion, since the dates on > the > > > > > > timestamped > > > > > > > > > >> > SNAPSHOT versions have implicit transitive > dependencies > > to > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > >> > upstream projects that also have their own timestamped > > > > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > > > > > >> > published. I.e., 999-20240501 of `kie-tools` won't be > > > > aligned > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > >> > 999-2024051 of > > > > > `drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps`. > > > > > > > > > >> > c. Updating dependencies across the board would be > much > > more > > > > > > > > > >> > difficult, as we would need to rely on a chain > reaction > > > > > starting > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > >> > the `drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps` > > cluster > > > > > > all the > > > > > > > > > >> > way down to `kogito-serverless-operator`, releasing > > > > > timestamped > > > > > > > > > >> > SNAPSHOTs and sending PRs for each "cluster" along the > > way. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > I'm not sure this is the way we want to move forward, > > to be > > > > > > honest, > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > >> > these consequences need to be thoroughly examined by > > people > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > community, so that all the side-effects of this choice > > are > > > > > > clear to > > > > > > > > > >> > everyone. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > To conclude, having `kie-tools` building a "template > > image" > > > > to > > > > > > > > verify > > > > > > > > > >> > that it will not break `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > downstream, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >> > having `kogito-serverless-operator` building parts of > > > > > > `kie-tools` to > > > > > > > > > >> > incorporate the latest changes, IMHO, is: > > > > > > > > > >> > 1. Duplication of building logic. IMHO, we can't have > > > > > individual > > > > > > > > repos > > > > > > > > > >> > creating its own up- and downstream CI systems. > > > > > > > > > >> > 2. Conflicting with the timestamped SNAPSHOTs strategy > > for > > > > > > > > integrating > > > > > > > > > >> > repos, where boundaries are clearly defined. > > > > > > > > > >> > 3. Wasteful use of resources (same that is happening > > with > > > > > > > > > >> > `kogito-images` building `kogito-apps` right now). > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > I'm sorry for bringing all this to this seemingly > simple > > > > > > proposal, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > >> > I'm afraid taking steps without knowing where we're > > going > > > > > isn't > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > way to move forward. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Please let me know if I misunderstood something. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 3:15 PM ricardo zanini > fernandes > > > > > > > > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Sorry for the late reply, I was on PTO. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Replies inline. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The `kie-tools` CI is not prepared to build > > > > > > > > > >> > > `kogito-serverless-operator`, so the way > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > >> > > references the SonataFlow Quarkus Dev UI will be > > important > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > >> > > establish the boundaries between both repos. To > > further > > > > > > develop > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > > SonataFlow Quarkus Dev UI and have its changes > > reflect on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > > `kogito-swf-devmode` image, we need to come up with > a > > > > > strategy > > > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > > > >> > > both safe, consistent, and enforces correctness. > > There's > > > > > also > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > fact > > > > > > > > > >> > > that currently `kie-tools` depends on timestamped > > > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > >> > > Kogito/Drools, while `kogito-serverless-operator` > uses > > > > > > > > 999-SNAPSHOT, > > > > > > > > > >> > > if I'm not mistaken. Can you elaborate a little bit > > more > > > > on > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > >> > > see this reference being done? Please consider > > cross-repo > > > > > PRs > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > >> > > migrations like the Quarkus 3.8.4 that is currently > > > > > happening. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > This will make us discuss yet again the need of > > snapshots > > > > > for > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > UI > > > > > > > > > >> > > components used by the images. The images must be > the > > end > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > >> > > pipeline, where we aggregate every component we ship > > in a > > > > > > single > > > > > > > > > >> instance > > > > > > > > > >> > > to release. Yet, they are a core part of the cloud > > > > platform, > > > > > > hence > > > > > > > > > >> part of > > > > > > > > > >> > > the Operator BDD, testing, integration, and > > delivering. > > > > > > > > Intermediate > > > > > > > > > >> repos > > > > > > > > > >> > > can't depend on them unless they are also > responsible > > for > > > > > > > > maintenance > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > > >> > > release like what we're doing with the consoles. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Also, the images can have a respin anytime we need a > > new > > > > > > component > > > > > > > > > >> bump. We > > > > > > > > > >> > > do this all the time to fix CVEs or bug fixes in a > > > > specific > > > > > > > > component > > > > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > > > > >> > > is part of the image. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > The devui can be developed and maintained within the > > > > > kie-tools > > > > > > > > repo > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > > >> > > have tests that verify that component. The > integration > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > > > made > > > > > > > > > >> on the > > > > > > > > > >> > > Images/Operator side once we grab a latest snapshot. > > > > > > > > Alternatively, > > > > > > > > > >> we can > > > > > > > > > >> > > do: > > > > > > > > > >> > > 1. The tools CI can fetch a template image, inject > the > > > > > > component, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >> run > > > > > > > > > >> > > the required tests > > > > > > > > > >> > > 2. The image/operator CI can fetch and build the UI > > > > > > components and > > > > > > > > > >> run the > > > > > > > > > >> > > integration tests > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Also, regarding point "4. Review the PR GHA checks > > to > > > > run > > > > > > CLI > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > >> > > once there's a change in the cmd module" of the > > proposed > > > > > > EPIC, I > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > >> > > we might run into problems, since the `cmd` module > > also > > > > > > depends > > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > >> > > `api` and `workflowproj` modules of > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator.` > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > >> > > afraid changes made to these two modules would also > > need > > > > to > > > > > > > > trigger a > > > > > > > > > >> > > build of the `cmd` module, and they can potentially > > break > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Sorry to not get into details there, but the new cmd > > > > module > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > >> part of > > > > > > > > > >> > > the Operator's workspace, any changes in any cross > > > > > > dependencies > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > > >> > > trigger the CI checks, as we are doing today in the > > > > builder > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >> > > workflowproj modules. It will be way easier to > > maintain > > > > the > > > > > > CLI. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > These considerations alone, IMHO, expose one of > the > > > > > biggest > > > > > > > > > >> challenges > > > > > > > > > >> > > we have in our community right now, which is that > the > > > > > > definition > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >> > > implementation of the dependency graph between > > > > > > > > repos/modules/packages > > > > > > > > > >> > > is currently spread across many different "build > > systems", > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > > new proposed GHA jobs exclusive to the > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > >> > > repo, the Build Chain system we have for the > > Drools/Kogito > > > > > > repos, > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > > `kie-tools` CI, and the many Jenkins jobs we have on > > > > > Apache's > > > > > > > > Jenkins. > > > > > > > > > >> > > There's also the fact that we have `kogito-images` > > > > > selectively > > > > > > > > > >> > > building parts of `kogito-apps` during its own build > > to > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > >> > > in the images it produces. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I agree. We would need to sit together and solve > this > > as a > > > > > > team, > > > > > > > > > >> having a > > > > > > > > > >> > > nice integration across every repo. The > kogito-images > > > > > building > > > > > > > > parts > > > > > > > > > >> of the > > > > > > > > > >> > > apps is something we currently working on, IIRC. The > > apps > > > > > will > > > > > > > > deploy > > > > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > > > > >> > > snapshot as part of the nightlies and the images > will > > be > > > > > > using it. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I just think it is important to highlight that > this > > > > > proposal > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > >> > > only address a LOCAL problem related exclusively to > > the > > > > > > SonataFlow > > > > > > > > > >> > > section of the Apache KIE community, while, at the > > same > > > > > time, > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > >> > > contributing to reducing the segmentation of the > > Apache > > > > KIE > > > > > > > > community > > > > > > > > > >> > > as a whole. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Yes, the proposal is to starting addressing the > local > > > > Apache > > > > > > KIE > > > > > > > > > >> SonataFlow > > > > > > > > > >> > > Cloud platform first. But I agree that we need to > > refactor > > > > > > our CI > > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > >> > > whole, which is something we should start in a new > > thread. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:02 PM Tiago Bento < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Zanini and Alex, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The task we agreed on for after releasing Apache > > KIE 10 > > > > is > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1040. > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > >> > > > describes deleting the temporary copies we'll have > > on > > > > KIE > > > > > > Tools > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >> > > > reverting things back to where they were, using > the > > > > fixed > > > > > > 10.0.0 > > > > > > > > > >> > > > version. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Moving `kn-plugin-workflow` and the > > > > > > > > `kogito-swf-{devmode,builder}` > > > > > > > > > >> > > > images to `kogito-serverless-operator` would be a > > new > > > > > move, > > > > > > > > which I > > > > > > > > > >> > > > understand is the scope of this proposal thread. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Doing so, however, will make > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > depend on > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kie-tools`, since the SonataFlow Quarkus Dev UI > is > > > > hosted > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > >> now, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > and it is a dependency of the `kogito-swf-devmode` > > > > image. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm saying this because I think we need to further > > > > discuss > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > > > consequences of this change... > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The `kie-tools` CI is not prepared to build > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kogito-serverless-operator`, so the way > > > > > > > > > >> `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > >> > > > references the SonataFlow Quarkus Dev UI will be > > > > important > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > >> > > > establish the boundaries between both repos. To > > further > > > > > > develop > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > > > SonataFlow Quarkus Dev UI and have its changes > > reflect > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kogito-swf-devmode` image, we need to come up > with > > a > > > > > > strategy > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > > > > >> > > > both safe, consistent, and enforces correctness. > > There's > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> fact > > > > > > > > > >> > > > that currently `kie-tools` depends on timestamped > > > > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Kogito/Drools, while `kogito-serverless-operator` > > uses > > > > > > > > 999-SNAPSHOT, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > if I'm not mistaken. Can you elaborate a little > bit > > more > > > > > on > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > >> > > > see this reference being done? Please consider > > > > cross-repo > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > >> big > > > > > > > > > >> > > > migrations like the Quarkus 3.8.4 that is > currently > > > > > > happening. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Also, regarding point "4. Review the PR GHA checks > > to > > > > run > > > > > > CLI > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > >> > > > once there's a change in the cmd module" of the > > proposed > > > > > > EPIC, I > > > > > > > > > >> think > > > > > > > > > >> > > > we might run into problems, since the `cmd` module > > also > > > > > > depends > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `api` and `workflowproj` modules of > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator.` > > > > > > > > > >> I'm > > > > > > > > > >> > > > afraid changes made to these two modules would > also > > need > > > > > to > > > > > > > > trigger > > > > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > > > > >> > > > build of the `cmd` module, and they can > potentially > > > > break > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > These considerations alone, IMHO, expose one of > the > > > > > biggest > > > > > > > > > >> challenges > > > > > > > > > >> > > > we have in our community right now, which is that > > the > > > > > > > > definition and > > > > > > > > > >> > > > implementation of the dependency graph between > > > > > > > > > >> repos/modules/packages > > > > > > > > > >> > > > is currently spread across many different "build > > > > systems", > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> > > > new proposed GHA jobs exclusive to the > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > >> > > > repo, the Build Chain system we have for the > > > > Drools/Kogito > > > > > > > > repos, > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kie-tools` CI, and the many Jenkins jobs we have > on > > > > > > Apache's > > > > > > > > > >> Jenkins. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > There's also the fact that we have `kogito-images` > > > > > > selectively > > > > > > > > > >> > > > building parts of `kogito-apps` during its own > > build to > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > >> > > > in the images it produces. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > With all that said, I'm not opposed to moving the > > > > > > > > > >> `kn-workflow-plugin` > > > > > > > > > >> > > > package from `kie-tools` to the `cmd` module of > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kogito-serverless-operator`. In fact, like I said > > in > > > > the > > > > > > past, > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > >> > > > think it makes a lot of sense that they're part of > > the > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > >> > > > compilation unit, as they're very closely related, > > and > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > >> > > > therefore be in sync at all times. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I just think it is important to highlight that > this > > > > > proposal > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > >> > > > only address a LOCAL problem related exclusively > to > > the > > > > > > > > SonataFlow > > > > > > > > > >> > > > section of the Apache KIE community, while, at the > > same > > > > > > time, > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > >> > > > contributing to reducing the segmentation of the > > Apache > > > > > KIE > > > > > > > > > >> community > > > > > > > > > >> > > > as a whole. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Tiago Bento > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 4:08 PM ricardo zanini > > fernandes > > > > > > > > > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Alex, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, in the proposal we just barely outlined. I > > create > > > > > the > > > > > > > > EPIC > > > > > > > > > >> to have > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > more details and start working on them as soon > as > > we > > > > > > agree. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 4:24 PM Alex Porcelli < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you for outlining the tasks post the > 10.x > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > important to note that these are already > > included in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > amended > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > proposal [1], specifically in steps 9 and 10, > > which > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> community has > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > voted on. If there are concerns about the > > execution > > > > of > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > >> steps, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'd like to reassure you that they will > proceed > > as > > > > > > planned, > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > compliance with Apache guidelines. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Looking ahead, after the release of version > 10, > > we > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > >> agreed that > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > we'll need to have a thorough discussion > > regarding > > > > the > > > > > > > > codebase > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > structure. This will allow us to refine our > > > > > > understanding > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sub-brands, their interrelationships, and > their > > > > > > strategic > > > > > > > > > >> positioning. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I agree that this is crucial for our next > steps > > and > > > > > look > > > > > > > > > >> forward to > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > our collaborative efforts in shaping this. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] - > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/pw327lkpmy9gxklq4t5zbwzxjo2y3c0w > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:50 PM ricardo zanini > > > > > fernandes > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've outlined the tasks we need once we > > release > > > > 10.x > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > >> kie-tools: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1102 > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Once we release, we can detail this planning > > and > > > > > start > > > > > > > > > >> working on it > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > have a streamlined process for the next > > release. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Please let me know if it makes sense to you. > > We > > > > can > > > > > > break > > > > > > > > > >> down and > > > > > > > > > >> > > > detail > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the tasks once we agree on this initial > plan. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ricardo Zanini Fernandes > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Vida longa e próspera. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
