I don't know what that us to do with templates though - what "parameter" applies? The registry external name?
On Aug 9, 2017, at 1:22 PM, Cesar Wong <cew...@redhat.com> wrote: The purpose of the endpoint is to parameterize an aspect of the resources passed to it. We are initially implementing image references, but the idea is to allow parameterizing other things such as environment variables, names, etc. This is orthogonal to transforming the resources for export which ‘GET’ with the export parameter needs to handle. On Aug 9, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Clayton Coleman <ccole...@redhat.com> wrote: Why do we need parameters? Which parameters are we adding? On Aug 9, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Cesar Wong <cew...@redhat.com> wrote: Hi Devan, You can see my branch here: https://github.com/csrwng/origin/tree/parameterize_template (last 5 commits) Hopefully should be a PR soon. The REST endpoint should be functional, the CLI still needs work, but basically the idea is to have the reverse of the ‘oc process’ command, where the input is a list of resources and out comes a template with parameters. On Aug 9, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Devan Goodwin <dgood...@redhat.com> wrote: On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Cesar Wong <cew...@redhat.com> wrote: Hi Devan, This past iteration I started work on this same problem  https://trello.com/c/I2ZJxS94/998-5-improve-oc-export-to-parameterize-containerapppromotion The problem is broad and the way I decided to break it up is to consider the export and parameterize operations independently. The export should be handled by the resource’s strategy as you mentioned in the Kube issue you opened. The parameterization part can be a follow up to the export. Here’s an initial document describing it: https://docs.google.com/a/redhat.com/document/d/15SLkhXRovY1dLbxpWFy_Wfq3I6xMznsOAnopTYrXw_A/edit?usp=sharing Thanks that was a good read, will keep an eye on this document. Does anything exist yet for your parameterization code? Curious what it looks like and if it's something we could re-use yet, what the inputs and outputs are, etc. On the export side, I think we need to decide whether there is different “types” of export that can happen which should affect the logic of the resource strategy. For example, does a deployment config look different if you’re exporting it for use in a different namespace vs a different cluster. If this is the case, then right now is probably a good time to drive that change to the upstream API as David suggested. Is anyone working on a proposal for this export logic upstream? I am wondering if I should try to put one together if I can find the time. The general idea (as I understand it) would be to migrate the currently quite broken export=true param to something strategy based, and interpret "true" to mean a strategy that matches what we do today. The references in code I've seen indicate that the current intention is to strip anything the user cannot specify themselves. On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Ben Parees <bpar...@redhat.com> wrote: On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Devan Goodwin <dgood...@redhat.com> wrote: On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Ben Parees <bpar...@redhat.com> wrote: On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Devan Goodwin <dgood...@redhat.com> wrote: We are working on a more robust project export/import process (into a new namespace, possibly a new cluster, etc) and have a question on how to handle image streams. Our first test was with "oc new-app https://github.com/openshift/ruby-hello-world.git", this results in an image stream like the following: $ oc get is ruby-hello-world -o yaml apiVersion: v1 kind: ImageStream metadata: annotations: openshift.io/generated-by: OpenShiftNewApp creationTimestamp: 2017-08-08T12:01:22Z generation: 1 labels: app: ruby-hello-world name: ruby-hello-world namespace: project1 resourceVersion: "183991" selfLink: /oapi/v1/namespaces/project1/imagestreams/ruby-hello-world uid: 4bd229be-7c31-11e7-badf-989096de63cb spec: lookupPolicy: local: false status: dockerImageRepository: 172.30.1.1:5000/project1/ruby-hello-world tags: - items: - created: 2017-08-08T12:02:04Z dockerImageReference: 172.30.1.1:5000/project1/ruby-hello-world@sha256:8d0f81a13ec1b8f8fa4372d26075f0dd87578fba2ec120776133db71ce2c2074 generation: 1 image: sha256:8d0f81a13ec1b8f8fa4372d26075f0dd87578fba2ec120776133db71ce2c2074 tag: latest If we link up with the kubernetes resource exporting by adding --export: $ oc get is ruby-hello-world -o yaml --export apiVersion: v1 kind: ImageStream metadata: annotations: openshift.io/generated-by: OpenShiftNewApp creationTimestamp: null generation: 1 labels: app: ruby-hello-world name: ruby-hello-world namespace: default selfLink: /oapi/v1/namespaces/default/imagestreams/ruby-hello-world spec: lookupPolicy: local: false status: dockerImageRepository: 172.30.1.1:5000/default/ruby-hello-world This leads to an initial question, what stripped the status tags? I would have expected this code to live in the image stream strategy: https://github.com/openshift/origin/blob/master/pkg/image/registry/imagestream/strategy.go but this does not satisfy RESTExportStrategy, I wasn't able to determine where this is happening. The dockerImageRepository in status remains, but weirdly flips from "project1" to "default" when doing an export. Should this remain in an exported IS at all? And if so is there any reason why it would flip from project1 to default? Our real problem however picks up in the deployment config after import, in here we end up with the following (partial) DC: apiVersion: v1 kind: DeploymentConfig metadata: annotations: openshift.io/generated-by: OpenShiftNewApp labels: app: ruby-hello-world name: ruby-hello-world namespace: project2 selfLink: /oapi/v1/namespaces/project2/deploymentconfigs/ruby-hello-world spec: template: metadata: annotations: openshift.io/generated-by: OpenShiftNewApp labels: app: ruby-hello-world deploymentconfig: ruby-hello-world spec: containers: - image: 172.30.1.1:5000/project1/ruby-hello-world@sha256:8d0f81a13ec1b8f8fa4372d26075f0dd87578fba2ec120776133db71ce2c2074 imagePullPolicy: Always name: ruby-hello-world So our deployment config still refers to a very specific image and points to the old project. Is there any logic we could apply safely to address this? It feels like this should boil down to something like "ruby-hello-world@sha256:HASH", could we watch for $REGISTRY_IP:PORT/projectname/ during export and strip that leading portion out? What would be the risks in doing so? Adding Cesar since he was recently looking at some of the export logic you have questions about and he's also very interested in this subject since he's working on a related piece of functionality. That said: if you've got an imagechangetrigger in the DC you should be able to strip the entire image field (it should be repopulated from the ICT imagestream reference during deployment). However: Ok good, so during export we can iterate the image change triggers, if we see one we can match up on containerName and strip container.image for that name. 1) you still need to straighten out the ICT reference which is also going to be pointing to an imagestreamtag in the old project/cluster/whatever Ok I think we can handle this explicitly. More below though. 2) if you don't have an ICT reference you do need to sort this out and stripping it the way you propose is definitely not a good idea...what's going to repopulate that w/ the right prefix/project in the new cluster? What if the image field was pointing to docker.io or some other external registry? I definitely wouldn't advocate blindly doing so, but rather on export I believe we can determine the cluster registry IP (if there is one), and then watch for it as we export objects, and parameterize it. At this point it feels like we need to be thinking about generating a template rather than a flat list of kube API resources. (which is what our app does right now) talk to Cesar. He's developing a "templatize this resource object" api endpoint. The idea would be to run a flow where you export objects, then send them through the templatizer. This past iteration To clarify I have been attempting to do as much of this using the built in kube API "export" param, but the suggestion above feels like it should not be there. Our main driver will be an app in-cluster (for monitoring capacity and archiving dormant projects), so we do have a place to apply extra logic like this. I'm now thinking our app should layer this logic in after we fetch the resources using kube's export param, and then generate a template. We need a general solution to the "export this resource for use in another project/cluster" problem, it would be nice if this could be that. But as i said, there are some very intractable problems around how to handle references. Side topic, it would be nice if this functionality was available in oc somewhere (potentially as some new command in future), would just need to solve lookup of the integrated registry IP so we could extract it to a param. yes, it's definitely desirable if we can solve the challenges to make it generically usable. In short, you're attempting to tackle a very complex problem where the answer is frequently "it depends". We wrote some documentation discussing some of the considerations when exporting/importing resources between clusters/projects: https://docs.openshift.org/latest/dev_guide/application_lifecycle/promoting_applications.html This is very useful, as is the feedback, thanks! If anyone has additional edge cases in mind please let us know, or if you believe this is simply not possible and we shouldn't be trying. However at this point I'm still feeling like we can proceed here with the goal of doing as much as we can, try to ensure the users project makes it into it's new location and if something is broken because we missed it, or it simply has to be broken because we can't make assumptions, they can fix it themselves. Defining the boundary conditions of when the user simply has to step in and manually fix up references/etc is definitely a good idea. I think anything that references something outside the current project (whether that means another project in the same cluster, or another cluster, or an external registry entirely) qualifies, at a minimum, for a warning to the user of "we weren't sure how to handle this so we left it alone, but you may need to update it depending where you intend to reuse this resource" All help appreciated, thanks. Devan -- Ben Parees | OpenShift -- Ben Parees | OpenShift _______________________________________________ dev mailing list email@example.com http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev