+1 to extract validators for granular deployment tasks Dmitry, do you mean that we should create some cli to generate graph picture? Or just make it as a module and then use it in Nailgun?
Thanks, On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for separate tasks/graph validation library > > In my opinion we may even migrate graph visualizer to this library, cause > it is most usefull during development and to demand installed fuel with > nailgun feels a bit suboptimal > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Kamil Sambor <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I want to discuss separating validation from our repositories to one. On >> this moment in fuel we have validation for granular deployment tasks in 3 >> separate repositories so we need to maintain very similar code in all of >> them. New idea that we discussed with guys assumes to keep this code in one >> place. Below are more details. >> >> Schema validator should be in separate repo, we will install validator in >> fuel-plugin, fuel-lib, fuel-nailgun. Validator should support versions >> (return schemas and validate them for selected version). >> Reasons why we should have validation in all three repositories: >> nailgun: we need validation in api because we are able to send our own >> tasks to nailgun and execute them (now we validate type of tasks in >> deployment graph and during installation of plugin) >> fuel-library: we need to check if tasks schema is correct defined in >> task.yaml files and if tasks not create cycles (actually we do both things) >> fuel-plugin: we need to check if defined tasks are supported by selected >> version of nailgun (now we check if task type are the same with hardcoded >> types in fuel-plugin, we not update this part since a while and now there >> are only 2 type of tasks: shell and puppet) >> With versioning we shouldn't have conflicts between nailgun serialization >> and fuel-plugin because plugin will be able to use schemas for specified >> version of nailgun. >> >> As a core reviewers of repositories we should keep the same reviewers as >> we have in fuel-core. >> >> How validator should looks like: >> separate repo, to install using pip >> need to return correct schema for selected version of fuel >> should be able to validate schema for selected version and ignore >> selected fields >> validate graph from selected tasks >> >> Pros and cons of this solution: >> pros: >> one place to keep validation >> less error prone - we will eliminate errors caused by not updating one of >> the repos, also it will be easy to test if changes are correct and >> compatible with all repos >> easier to develop (less changes in cases when we add new type of task or >> we change schemas of tasks - we edit just one place) >> easy distribution of code between repositories and easy to use by >> external developers >> cons: >> new repository that needs to be managed (and included into CI/QA/release >> cycle) >> new dependency for fuel-library, fuel-web, fuel-plugins (fuel plugin >> builder) of which developer need to be aware of >> >> Please comments and give opinions. >> >> Best regards, >> Kamil Sambor >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
