Re: Signalling production-state of an action

[Rob Allen]

Hi,

In general, I'm in favour of the idea of setting properties rather than any 
sort of convention as it's far more flexible.

Regards,

Rob...


> On 2 Sep 2017, at 19:19, Michael Marth  wrote:
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> “_” as a separator was just an example, could be anything else as well.
> 
> But IIUC your comment
> “Like a boolean that the user wants a certain namespace to be treated as  
> "test/debug"”
> you hint at an idea I like better: letting users apply properties to 
> namespaces. (not just by naming convention, but by storing these properties 
> in the DB).
> Did I get that right?
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/09/17 19:43, "Carlos Santana"  wrote:
> 
>We (IBM) in our in production environment today might have some hard
>constraint to support this.
>And we already took the liberty to use `_` in the namespace to mean
>something else.
> 
>For example in our case the namespace is composed of user global account
>information, in our case we leverage CloudFoundry system or Organization
>and Space.
>Where NameSpace = $Organization + "_" + $Space
> 
>So we already have in production users with namespaces with "_" in their
>production namespaces.
> 
>If using the value of the namespace is an option then if namespace ends
>with `_*test` but we need to check if we have users using a namespace like
>this today I think that would be somewhat difficult.
>In our case use would do something like `carlos_app1` and
>`carlos_app1test`, we will tell folks to create a new space that ends with
>`test`
> 
> 
>Other options:
>Something on the specific entity (like a action annotation).
>We could add something to the subjects DB, and the controller can tag
>something to the activation when sending to kafka for the invoker.
>Like a boolean that the user wants a certain namespace to be treated as
>"test/debug"
> 
>I was thinking a secondary OW API Key, but this brakes down for Web Actions
>as they are public
> 
>No concrete feedback but worth the discussion, just wanted to give feedback
>on the convention of using `_`
> 
>--Carlos Santana
> 
> 
>On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:42 AM Michael Marth 
>wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> in yesterday’s tech exchange Rodric mentioned that OW does not „know“ if
>> an action is in production or still in development stage.
>> The context of that comment was that we could consider to treat the
>> activation log collection separately (depending on the in-production-state).
>> 
>> In our OW deployment we have discussed a somewhat related topic:
>> How would our users move their actions from a development state to a
>> production state. Consider the user’s application to consider of a couple
>> of actions. Once the actions actually are deployed in production, then how
>> would the users edit and test new versions of these actions and deploy the
>> new versions into production.
>> (note: this is a separate topic from the production state and CI/CD
>> pipeline of the OW system itself)
>> 
>> The concept we came up with is based on a namespace convention:
>> If a user is provisioned with the namespace e.g. “mynamespace” then that
>> user can create additional arbitrary namespaces separated by an underscore,
>> e.g. mynamespace_dev, mynamespace_mytest123, etc. We would treat everything
>> with an underscore as non-production.
>> 
>> In case you wonder why we actually care: Knowing which actions are in
>> production and which ones are in development allows us to make decisions on
>> how the activation logs are collected and displayed, on alerting, on the
>> events/feeds we pipe into these actions etc.
>> 
>> I wanted to present our thoughts here to get feedback on:
>> Are there better approaches we could look into?
>> Is there an interest for a mechanism in OW itself to represent production
>> state (or simple adoption of the convention described above)?
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
Development thoughts at http://akrabat.com
Daily Jotter for macOS at http://dailyjotter.com

Re: Signalling production-state of an action

[Michael Marth]

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for the feedback.
“_” as a separator was just an example, could be anything else as well.

But IIUC your comment
“Like a boolean that the user wants a certain namespace to be treated as  
"test/debug"”
you hint at an idea I like better: letting users apply properties to 
namespaces. (not just by naming convention, but by storing these properties in 
the DB).
Did I get that right?



On 01/09/17 19:43, "Carlos Santana"  wrote:

We (IBM) in our in production environment today might have some hard
constraint to support this.
And we already took the liberty to use `_` in the namespace to mean
something else.

For example in our case the namespace is composed of user global account
information, in our case we leverage CloudFoundry system or Organization
and Space.
Where NameSpace = $Organization + "_" + $Space

So we already have in production users with namespaces with "_" in their
production namespaces.

If using the value of the namespace is an option then if namespace ends
with `_*test` but we need to check if we have users using a namespace like
this today I think that would be somewhat difficult.
In our case use would do something like `carlos_app1` and
`carlos_app1test`, we will tell folks to create a new space that ends with
`test`


Other options:
Something on the specific entity (like a action annotation).
We could add something to the subjects DB, and the controller can tag
something to the activation when sending to kafka for the invoker.
Like a boolean that the user wants a certain namespace to be treated as
"test/debug"

I was thinking a secondary OW API Key, but this brakes down for Web Actions
as they are public

No concrete feedback but worth the discussion, just wanted to give feedback
on the convention of using `_`

--Carlos Santana


On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:42 AM Michael Marth 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> in yesterday’s tech exchange Rodric mentioned that OW does not „know“ if
> an action is in production or still in development stage.
> The context of that comment was that we could consider to treat the
> activation log collection separately (depending on the 
in-production-state).
>
> In our OW deployment we have discussed a somewhat related topic:
> How would our users move their actions from a development state to a
> production state. Consider the user’s application to consider of a couple
> of actions. Once the actions actually are deployed in production, then how
> would the users edit and test new versions of these actions and deploy the
> new versions into production.
> (note: this is a separate topic from the production state and CI/CD
> pipeline of the OW system itself)
>
> The concept we came up with is based on a namespace convention:
> If a user is provisioned with the namespace e.g. “mynamespace” then that
> user can create additional arbitrary namespaces separated by an 
underscore,
> e.g. mynamespace_dev, mynamespace_mytest123, etc. We would treat 
everything
> with an underscore as non-production.
>
> In case you wonder why we actually care: Knowing which actions are in
> production and which ones are in development allows us to make decisions 
on
> how the activation logs are collected and displayed, on alerting, on the
> events/feeds we pipe into these actions etc.
>
> I wanted to present our thoughts here to get feedback on:
> Are there better approaches we could look into?
> Is there an interest for a mechanism in OW itself to represent production
> state (or simple adoption of the convention described above)?
>
> Michael
>

Signalling production-state of an action

[Michael Marth]

Hi,

in yesterday’s tech exchange Rodric mentioned that OW does not „know“ if an 
action is in production or still in development stage.
The context of that comment was that we could consider to treat the activation 
log collection separately (depending on the in-production-state).

In our OW deployment we have discussed a somewhat related topic:
How would our users move their actions from a development state to a production 
state. Consider the user’s application to consider of a couple of actions. Once 
the actions actually are deployed in production, then how would the users edit 
and test new versions of these actions and deploy the new versions into 
production.
(note: this is a separate topic from the production state and CI/CD pipeline of 
the OW system itself)

The concept we came up with is based on a namespace convention:
If a user is provisioned with the namespace e.g. “mynamespace” then that user 
can create additional arbitrary namespaces separated by an underscore, e.g. 
mynamespace_dev, mynamespace_mytest123, etc. We would treat everything with an 
underscore as non-production.

In case you wonder why we actually care: Knowing which actions are in 
production and which ones are in development allows us to make decisions on how 
the activation logs are collected and displayed, on alerting, on the 
events/feeds we pipe into these actions etc.

I wanted to present our thoughts here to get feedback on:
Are there better approaches we could look into?
Is there an interest for a mechanism in OW itself to represent production state 
(or simple adoption of the convention described above)?

Michael