Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
Vitaly, what do you think about that? On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi, I don't agree with many of your statements but, I would like to continue discussion about really important topic i.e. UI flow, my suggestion was to add groups, for plugin in metadata.yaml plugin developer can have description of the groups which it belongs to: groups: - id: storage subgroup: - id: cinder With this information we can show a new option on UI (wizard), if option is selected, it means that plugin is enabled, if plugin belongs to several groups, we can use OR statement. The main point is, for environment creation we must specify ids of plugins. Yet another reason for that is plugins multiversioning, we must know exactly which plugin with which version is used for environment, and I don't see how conditions can help us with it. Thanks, On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: 2014-12-10 19:31 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: 2014-12-10 16:57 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Hi, First let me describe what our plans for the nearest release. We want to deliver role as a simple plugin, it means that plugin developer can define his own role with yaml and also it should work fine with our current approach when user can define several fields on the settings tab. Also I would like to mention another thing which we should probably discuss in separate thread, how plugins should be implemented. We have two types of plugins, simple and complicated, the definition of simple - I can do everything I need with yaml, the definition of complicated - probably I have to write some python code. It doesn't mean that this python code should do absolutely everything it wants, but it means we should implement stable, documented interface where plugin is connected to the core. Now lets talk about UI flow, our current problem is how to get the information if plugins is used in the environment or not, this information is required for backend which generates appropriate tasks for task executor, also this information can be used in the future if we decide to implement plugins deletion mechanism. I didn't come up with a some new solution, as before we have two options to solve the problem: # 1 Use conditional language which is currently used on UI, it will look like Vitaly described in the example [1]. Plugin developer should: 1. describe at least one element for UI, which he will be able to use in task 2. add condition which is written in our own programming language Example of the condition for LBaaS plugin: condition: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true 3. add condition to metadata.yaml a condition which defines if plugin is enabled is_enabled: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true This approach has good flexibility, but also it has problems: a. It's complicated and not intuitive for plugin developer. It is less complicated than python code I'm not sure why are you talking about python code here, my point is we should not force developer to use this conditions in any language. But that's how current plugin-like stuff works. There are various tasks which are run only if some checkboxes are set, so stuff like Ceph and vCenter will need conditions to describe tasks. Anyway I don't agree with the statement there are more people who know python than fuel ui conditional language. b. It doesn't cover case when the user installs 3rd party plugin which doesn't have any conditions (because of # a) and user doesn't have a way to disable it for environment if it breaks his configuration. If plugin doesn't have conditions for tasks, then it has invalid metadata. Yep, and it's a problem of the platform, which provides a bad interface. Why is it bad? It plugin writer doesn't provide plugin name or version, then metadata is invalid also. It is plugin writer's fault that he didn't write metadata properly. # 2 As we discussed from the very beginning after user selects a release he can choose a set of plugins which he wants to be enabled for environment. After that we can say that plugin is enabled for the environment and we send tasks related to this plugin to task executor. My approach also allows to eliminate enableness of plugins which will cause UX issues and issues like you described above. vCenter and Ceph also don't have enabled state. vCenter has hypervisor and storage, Ceph provides backends for Cinder and Glance which can be used simultaneously or only one of them can be used. Both of described plugins have enabled/disabled state, vCenter is enabled when vCenter is selected as hypervisor. Ceph is enabled when it's selected as a backend for Cinder or Glance. Nope, Ceph for Volumes can be used
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
As I said, it is not flexible and restrictive. What if there are some other backends for anything appear? What to do if I want to write a plugin that just adds some extra styles to the UI? Invent a new structures/flags on demand? That's not viable. I still think enableness of plugin is the root of all issues with your approach. With your approach we lose single source of truth (cluster attributes/settings tab) we'll need to search for strange solutions like these groups/flags. 2014-12-17 12:33 GMT+01:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Vitaly, what do you think about that? On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi, I don't agree with many of your statements but, I would like to continue discussion about really important topic i.e. UI flow, my suggestion was to add groups, for plugin in metadata.yaml plugin developer can have description of the groups which it belongs to: groups: - id: storage subgroup: - id: cinder With this information we can show a new option on UI (wizard), if option is selected, it means that plugin is enabled, if plugin belongs to several groups, we can use OR statement. The main point is, for environment creation we must specify ids of plugins. Yet another reason for that is plugins multiversioning, we must know exactly which plugin with which version is used for environment, and I don't see how conditions can help us with it. Thanks, On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: 2014-12-10 19:31 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: 2014-12-10 16:57 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Hi, First let me describe what our plans for the nearest release. We want to deliver role as a simple plugin, it means that plugin developer can define his own role with yaml and also it should work fine with our current approach when user can define several fields on the settings tab. Also I would like to mention another thing which we should probably discuss in separate thread, how plugins should be implemented. We have two types of plugins, simple and complicated, the definition of simple - I can do everything I need with yaml, the definition of complicated - probably I have to write some python code. It doesn't mean that this python code should do absolutely everything it wants, but it means we should implement stable, documented interface where plugin is connected to the core. Now lets talk about UI flow, our current problem is how to get the information if plugins is used in the environment or not, this information is required for backend which generates appropriate tasks for task executor, also this information can be used in the future if we decide to implement plugins deletion mechanism. I didn't come up with a some new solution, as before we have two options to solve the problem: # 1 Use conditional language which is currently used on UI, it will look like Vitaly described in the example [1]. Plugin developer should: 1. describe at least one element for UI, which he will be able to use in task 2. add condition which is written in our own programming language Example of the condition for LBaaS plugin: condition: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true 3. add condition to metadata.yaml a condition which defines if plugin is enabled is_enabled: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true This approach has good flexibility, but also it has problems: a. It's complicated and not intuitive for plugin developer. It is less complicated than python code I'm not sure why are you talking about python code here, my point is we should not force developer to use this conditions in any language. But that's how current plugin-like stuff works. There are various tasks which are run only if some checkboxes are set, so stuff like Ceph and vCenter will need conditions to describe tasks. Anyway I don't agree with the statement there are more people who know python than fuel ui conditional language. b. It doesn't cover case when the user installs 3rd party plugin which doesn't have any conditions (because of # a) and user doesn't have a way to disable it for environment if it breaks his configuration. If plugin doesn't have conditions for tasks, then it has invalid metadata. Yep, and it's a problem of the platform, which provides a bad interface. Why is it bad? It plugin writer doesn't provide plugin name or version, then metadata is invalid also. It is plugin writer's fault that he didn't write metadata properly. # 2 As we discussed from the very beginning after user selects a release he can choose a set of plugins which he wants to be enabled for environment. After that we can say that plugin is enabled for the environment and we send tasks related to this plugin to task executor. My
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
Hi, I don't agree with many of your statements but, I would like to continue discussion about really important topic i.e. UI flow, my suggestion was to add groups, for plugin in metadata.yaml plugin developer can have description of the groups which it belongs to: groups: - id: storage subgroup: - id: cinder With this information we can show a new option on UI (wizard), if option is selected, it means that plugin is enabled, if plugin belongs to several groups, we can use OR statement. The main point is, for environment creation we must specify ids of plugins. Yet another reason for that is plugins multiversioning, we must know exactly which plugin with which version is used for environment, and I don't see how conditions can help us with it. Thanks, On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: 2014-12-10 19:31 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: 2014-12-10 16:57 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Hi, First let me describe what our plans for the nearest release. We want to deliver role as a simple plugin, it means that plugin developer can define his own role with yaml and also it should work fine with our current approach when user can define several fields on the settings tab. Also I would like to mention another thing which we should probably discuss in separate thread, how plugins should be implemented. We have two types of plugins, simple and complicated, the definition of simple - I can do everything I need with yaml, the definition of complicated - probably I have to write some python code. It doesn't mean that this python code should do absolutely everything it wants, but it means we should implement stable, documented interface where plugin is connected to the core. Now lets talk about UI flow, our current problem is how to get the information if plugins is used in the environment or not, this information is required for backend which generates appropriate tasks for task executor, also this information can be used in the future if we decide to implement plugins deletion mechanism. I didn't come up with a some new solution, as before we have two options to solve the problem: # 1 Use conditional language which is currently used on UI, it will look like Vitaly described in the example [1]. Plugin developer should: 1. describe at least one element for UI, which he will be able to use in task 2. add condition which is written in our own programming language Example of the condition for LBaaS plugin: condition: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true 3. add condition to metadata.yaml a condition which defines if plugin is enabled is_enabled: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true This approach has good flexibility, but also it has problems: a. It's complicated and not intuitive for plugin developer. It is less complicated than python code I'm not sure why are you talking about python code here, my point is we should not force developer to use this conditions in any language. But that's how current plugin-like stuff works. There are various tasks which are run only if some checkboxes are set, so stuff like Ceph and vCenter will need conditions to describe tasks. Anyway I don't agree with the statement there are more people who know python than fuel ui conditional language. b. It doesn't cover case when the user installs 3rd party plugin which doesn't have any conditions (because of # a) and user doesn't have a way to disable it for environment if it breaks his configuration. If plugin doesn't have conditions for tasks, then it has invalid metadata. Yep, and it's a problem of the platform, which provides a bad interface. Why is it bad? It plugin writer doesn't provide plugin name or version, then metadata is invalid also. It is plugin writer's fault that he didn't write metadata properly. # 2 As we discussed from the very beginning after user selects a release he can choose a set of plugins which he wants to be enabled for environment. After that we can say that plugin is enabled for the environment and we send tasks related to this plugin to task executor. My approach also allows to eliminate enableness of plugins which will cause UX issues and issues like you described above. vCenter and Ceph also don't have enabled state. vCenter has hypervisor and storage, Ceph provides backends for Cinder and Glance which can be used simultaneously or only one of them can be used. Both of described plugins have enabled/disabled state, vCenter is enabled when vCenter is selected as hypervisor. Ceph is enabled when it's selected as a backend for Cinder or Glance. Nope, Ceph for Volumes can be used without Ceph for Images. Both of these plugins can also have some granular tasks which are enabled by various checkboxes (like
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
Hi, First let me describe what our plans for the nearest release. We want to deliver role as a simple plugin, it means that plugin developer can define his own role with yaml and also it should work fine with our current approach when user can define several fields on the settings tab. Also I would like to mention another thing which we should probably discuss in separate thread, how plugins should be implemented. We have two types of plugins, simple and complicated, the definition of simple - I can do everything I need with yaml, the definition of complicated - probably I have to write some python code. It doesn't mean that this python code should do absolutely everything it wants, but it means we should implement stable, documented interface where plugin is connected to the core. Now lets talk about UI flow, our current problem is how to get the information if plugins is used in the environment or not, this information is required for backend which generates appropriate tasks for task executor, also this information can be used in the future if we decide to implement plugins deletion mechanism. I didn't come up with a some new solution, as before we have two options to solve the problem: # 1 Use conditional language which is currently used on UI, it will look like Vitaly described in the example [1]. Plugin developer should: 1. describe at least one element for UI, which he will be able to use in task 2. add condition which is written in our own programming language Example of the condition for LBaaS plugin: condition: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true 3. add condition to metadata.yaml a condition which defines if plugin is enabled is_enabled: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true This approach has good flexibility, but also it has problems: a. It's complicated and not intuitive for plugin developer. b. It doesn't cover case when the user installs 3rd party plugin which doesn't have any conditions (because of # a) and user doesn't have a way to disable it for environment if it breaks his configuration. # 2 As we discussed from the very beginning after user selects a release he can choose a set of plugins which he wants to be enabled for environment. After that we can say that plugin is enabled for the environment and we send tasks related to this plugin to task executor. My approach also allows to eliminate enableness of plugins which will cause UX issues and issues like you described above. vCenter and Ceph also don't have enabled state. vCenter has hypervisor and storage, Ceph provides backends for Cinder and Glance which can be used simultaneously or only one of them can be used. Both of described plugins have enabled/disabled state, vCenter is enabled when vCenter is selected as hypervisor. Ceph is enabled when it's selected as a backend for Cinder or Glance. If you don't like the idea of having Ceph/vCenter checkboxes on the first page, I can suggest as an idea (research is required) to define groups like Storage Backend, Network Manager and we will allow plugin developer to embed his option in radiobutton field on wizard pages. But plugin developer should not describe conditions, he should just write that his plugin is a Storage Backend, Hypervisor or new Network Manager. And the plugins e.g. Zabbix, Nagios, which don't belong to any of this groups should be shown as checkboxes on the first page of the wizard. [1] https://github.com/vkramskikh/fuel-plugins/commit/1ddb166731fc4bf614f502b276eb136687cb20cf On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: 2014-11-28 23:20 GMT+04:00 Dmitriy Shulyak dshul...@mirantis.com: - environment_config.yaml should contain exact config which will be mixed into cluster_attributes. No need to implicitly generate any controls like it is done now. Initially i had the same thoughts and wanted to use it the way it is, but now i completely agree with Evgeniy that additional DSL will cause a lot of problems with compatibility between versions and developer experience. As far as I understand, you want to introduce another approach to describe UI part or plugins? We need to search for alternatives.. 1. for UI i would prefer separate tab for plugins, where user will be able to enable/disable plugin explicitly. Of course, we need a separate page for plugin management. Currently settings tab is overloaded. 2. on backend we need to validate plugins against certain env before enabling it, and for simple case we may expose some basic entities like network_mode. For case where you need complex logic - python code is far more flexible that new DSL. - metadata.yaml should also contain is_removable field. This field is needed to determine whether it is possible to remove installed plugin. It is impossible to remove plugins in the current implementation. This field should contain an expression written in our DSL which we already use in
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
2014-12-10 16:57 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Hi, First let me describe what our plans for the nearest release. We want to deliver role as a simple plugin, it means that plugin developer can define his own role with yaml and also it should work fine with our current approach when user can define several fields on the settings tab. Also I would like to mention another thing which we should probably discuss in separate thread, how plugins should be implemented. We have two types of plugins, simple and complicated, the definition of simple - I can do everything I need with yaml, the definition of complicated - probably I have to write some python code. It doesn't mean that this python code should do absolutely everything it wants, but it means we should implement stable, documented interface where plugin is connected to the core. Now lets talk about UI flow, our current problem is how to get the information if plugins is used in the environment or not, this information is required for backend which generates appropriate tasks for task executor, also this information can be used in the future if we decide to implement plugins deletion mechanism. I didn't come up with a some new solution, as before we have two options to solve the problem: # 1 Use conditional language which is currently used on UI, it will look like Vitaly described in the example [1]. Plugin developer should: 1. describe at least one element for UI, which he will be able to use in task 2. add condition which is written in our own programming language Example of the condition for LBaaS plugin: condition: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true 3. add condition to metadata.yaml a condition which defines if plugin is enabled is_enabled: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true This approach has good flexibility, but also it has problems: a. It's complicated and not intuitive for plugin developer. It is less complicated than python code b. It doesn't cover case when the user installs 3rd party plugin which doesn't have any conditions (because of # a) and user doesn't have a way to disable it for environment if it breaks his configuration. If plugin doesn't have conditions for tasks, then it has invalid metadata. # 2 As we discussed from the very beginning after user selects a release he can choose a set of plugins which he wants to be enabled for environment. After that we can say that plugin is enabled for the environment and we send tasks related to this plugin to task executor. My approach also allows to eliminate enableness of plugins which will cause UX issues and issues like you described above. vCenter and Ceph also don't have enabled state. vCenter has hypervisor and storage, Ceph provides backends for Cinder and Glance which can be used simultaneously or only one of them can be used. Both of described plugins have enabled/disabled state, vCenter is enabled when vCenter is selected as hypervisor. Ceph is enabled when it's selected as a backend for Cinder or Glance. Nope, Ceph for Volumes can be used without Ceph for Images. Both of these plugins can also have some granular tasks which are enabled by various checkboxes (like VMware vCenter for volumes). How would you determine whether tasks which installs VMware vCenter for volumes should run? If you don't like the idea of having Ceph/vCenter checkboxes on the first page, I can suggest as an idea (research is required) to define groups like Storage Backend, Network Manager and we will allow plugin developer to embed his option in radiobutton field on wizard pages. But plugin developer should not describe conditions, he should just write that his plugin is a Storage Backend, Hypervisor or new Network Manager. And the plugins e.g. Zabbix, Nagios, which don't belong to any of this groups should be shown as checkboxes on the first page of the wizard. Why don't you just ditch enableness of plugins and get rid of this complex stuff? Can you explain why do you need to know if plugin is enabled? Let me summarize my opinion on this: - You don't need to know whether plugin is enabled or not. You need to know what tasks should be run and whether plugin is removable (anything else?). These conditions can be described by the DSL. - Explicitly asking the user to enable plugin for new environment should be considered as a last resort solution because it significantly impair our UX for inexperienced user. Just imagine: a new user which barely knows about OpenStack chooses a name for the environment, OS release and then he needs to choose plugins. Really? My proposal for complex plugin interface: there should be python classes with exactly the same fields from yaml files: plugin name, version, etc. But condition for cluster deletion and for tasks which are written in DSL in case of simple yaml config should become methods which plugin writer can make as
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: 2014-12-10 16:57 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Hi, First let me describe what our plans for the nearest release. We want to deliver role as a simple plugin, it means that plugin developer can define his own role with yaml and also it should work fine with our current approach when user can define several fields on the settings tab. Also I would like to mention another thing which we should probably discuss in separate thread, how plugins should be implemented. We have two types of plugins, simple and complicated, the definition of simple - I can do everything I need with yaml, the definition of complicated - probably I have to write some python code. It doesn't mean that this python code should do absolutely everything it wants, but it means we should implement stable, documented interface where plugin is connected to the core. Now lets talk about UI flow, our current problem is how to get the information if plugins is used in the environment or not, this information is required for backend which generates appropriate tasks for task executor, also this information can be used in the future if we decide to implement plugins deletion mechanism. I didn't come up with a some new solution, as before we have two options to solve the problem: # 1 Use conditional language which is currently used on UI, it will look like Vitaly described in the example [1]. Plugin developer should: 1. describe at least one element for UI, which he will be able to use in task 2. add condition which is written in our own programming language Example of the condition for LBaaS plugin: condition: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true 3. add condition to metadata.yaml a condition which defines if plugin is enabled is_enabled: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true This approach has good flexibility, but also it has problems: a. It's complicated and not intuitive for plugin developer. It is less complicated than python code I'm not sure why are you talking about python code here, my point is we should not force developer to use this conditions in any language. Anyway I don't agree with the statement there are more people who know python than fuel ui conditional language. b. It doesn't cover case when the user installs 3rd party plugin which doesn't have any conditions (because of # a) and user doesn't have a way to disable it for environment if it breaks his configuration. If plugin doesn't have conditions for tasks, then it has invalid metadata. Yep, and it's a problem of the platform, which provides a bad interface. # 2 As we discussed from the very beginning after user selects a release he can choose a set of plugins which he wants to be enabled for environment. After that we can say that plugin is enabled for the environment and we send tasks related to this plugin to task executor. My approach also allows to eliminate enableness of plugins which will cause UX issues and issues like you described above. vCenter and Ceph also don't have enabled state. vCenter has hypervisor and storage, Ceph provides backends for Cinder and Glance which can be used simultaneously or only one of them can be used. Both of described plugins have enabled/disabled state, vCenter is enabled when vCenter is selected as hypervisor. Ceph is enabled when it's selected as a backend for Cinder or Glance. Nope, Ceph for Volumes can be used without Ceph for Images. Both of these plugins can also have some granular tasks which are enabled by various checkboxes (like VMware vCenter for volumes). How would you determine whether tasks which installs VMware vCenter for volumes should run? Why nope? I have Cinder OR Glance. It can be easily handled in deployment script. If you don't like the idea of having Ceph/vCenter checkboxes on the first page, I can suggest as an idea (research is required) to define groups like Storage Backend, Network Manager and we will allow plugin developer to embed his option in radiobutton field on wizard pages. But plugin developer should not describe conditions, he should just write that his plugin is a Storage Backend, Hypervisor or new Network Manager. And the plugins e.g. Zabbix, Nagios, which don't belong to any of this groups should be shown as checkboxes on the first page of the wizard. Why don't you just ditch enableness of plugins and get rid of this complex stuff? Can you explain why do you need to know if plugin is enabled? Let me summarize my opinion on this: I described why we need it many times. Also it looks like you skipped another option and I would like to see some more information why you don't like it and why it's a bad from UX stand point of view. - You don't need to know whether plugin is enabled or not. You need to know what tasks should be run and whether plugin is
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
2014-12-10 19:31 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: 2014-12-10 16:57 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Hi, First let me describe what our plans for the nearest release. We want to deliver role as a simple plugin, it means that plugin developer can define his own role with yaml and also it should work fine with our current approach when user can define several fields on the settings tab. Also I would like to mention another thing which we should probably discuss in separate thread, how plugins should be implemented. We have two types of plugins, simple and complicated, the definition of simple - I can do everything I need with yaml, the definition of complicated - probably I have to write some python code. It doesn't mean that this python code should do absolutely everything it wants, but it means we should implement stable, documented interface where plugin is connected to the core. Now lets talk about UI flow, our current problem is how to get the information if plugins is used in the environment or not, this information is required for backend which generates appropriate tasks for task executor, also this information can be used in the future if we decide to implement plugins deletion mechanism. I didn't come up with a some new solution, as before we have two options to solve the problem: # 1 Use conditional language which is currently used on UI, it will look like Vitaly described in the example [1]. Plugin developer should: 1. describe at least one element for UI, which he will be able to use in task 2. add condition which is written in our own programming language Example of the condition for LBaaS plugin: condition: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true 3. add condition to metadata.yaml a condition which defines if plugin is enabled is_enabled: settings:lbaas.metadata.enabled == true This approach has good flexibility, but also it has problems: a. It's complicated and not intuitive for plugin developer. It is less complicated than python code I'm not sure why are you talking about python code here, my point is we should not force developer to use this conditions in any language. But that's how current plugin-like stuff works. There are various tasks which are run only if some checkboxes are set, so stuff like Ceph and vCenter will need conditions to describe tasks. Anyway I don't agree with the statement there are more people who know python than fuel ui conditional language. b. It doesn't cover case when the user installs 3rd party plugin which doesn't have any conditions (because of # a) and user doesn't have a way to disable it for environment if it breaks his configuration. If plugin doesn't have conditions for tasks, then it has invalid metadata. Yep, and it's a problem of the platform, which provides a bad interface. Why is it bad? It plugin writer doesn't provide plugin name or version, then metadata is invalid also. It is plugin writer's fault that he didn't write metadata properly. # 2 As we discussed from the very beginning after user selects a release he can choose a set of plugins which he wants to be enabled for environment. After that we can say that plugin is enabled for the environment and we send tasks related to this plugin to task executor. My approach also allows to eliminate enableness of plugins which will cause UX issues and issues like you described above. vCenter and Ceph also don't have enabled state. vCenter has hypervisor and storage, Ceph provides backends for Cinder and Glance which can be used simultaneously or only one of them can be used. Both of described plugins have enabled/disabled state, vCenter is enabled when vCenter is selected as hypervisor. Ceph is enabled when it's selected as a backend for Cinder or Glance. Nope, Ceph for Volumes can be used without Ceph for Images. Both of these plugins can also have some granular tasks which are enabled by various checkboxes (like VMware vCenter for volumes). How would you determine whether tasks which installs VMware vCenter for volumes should run? Why nope? I have Cinder OR Glance. Oh, I missed it. So there are 2 checkboxes, how would you determine enableness? It can be easily handled in deployment script. I don't know much about the status of granular deployment blueprint, but AFAIK that's what we are going to get rid of. If you don't like the idea of having Ceph/vCenter checkboxes on the first page, I can suggest as an idea (research is required) to define groups like Storage Backend, Network Manager and we will allow plugin developer to embed his option in radiobutton field on wizard pages. But plugin developer should not describe conditions, he should just write that his plugin is a Storage Backend, Hypervisor or new Network Manager. And the plugins e.g. Zabbix,
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
2014-11-28 23:20 GMT+04:00 Dmitriy Shulyak dshul...@mirantis.com: - environment_config.yaml should contain exact config which will be mixed into cluster_attributes. No need to implicitly generate any controls like it is done now. Initially i had the same thoughts and wanted to use it the way it is, but now i completely agree with Evgeniy that additional DSL will cause a lot of problems with compatibility between versions and developer experience. As far as I understand, you want to introduce another approach to describe UI part or plugins? We need to search for alternatives.. 1. for UI i would prefer separate tab for plugins, where user will be able to enable/disable plugin explicitly. Of course, we need a separate page for plugin management. Currently settings tab is overloaded. 2. on backend we need to validate plugins against certain env before enabling it, and for simple case we may expose some basic entities like network_mode. For case where you need complex logic - python code is far more flexible that new DSL. - metadata.yaml should also contain is_removable field. This field is needed to determine whether it is possible to remove installed plugin. It is impossible to remove plugins in the current implementation. This field should contain an expression written in our DSL which we already use in a few places. The LBaaS plugin also uses it to hide the checkbox if Neutron is not used, so even simple plugins like this need to utilize it. This field can also be autogenerated, for more complex plugins plugin writer needs to fix it manually. For example, for Ceph it could look like settings:storage.volumes_ceph.value == false and settings:storage.images_ceph.value == false. How checkbox will help? There is several cases of plugin removal.. It is not a checkbox, this is condition that determines whether the plugin is removable. It allows plugin developer specify when plguin can be safely removed from Fuel if there are some environments which were created after the plugin had been installed. 1. Plugin is installed, but not enabled for any env - just remove the plugin 2. Plugin is installed, enabled and cluster deployed - forget about it for now.. 3. Plugin is installed and only enabled - we need to maintain state of db consistent after plugin is removed, it is problematic, but possible My approach also allows to eliminate enableness of plugins which will cause UX issues and issues like you described above. vCenter and Ceph also don't have enabled state. vCenter has hypervisor and storage, Ceph provides backends for Cinder and Glance which can be used simultaneously or only one of them can be used. My main point that plugin is enabled/disabled explicitly by user, after that we can decide ourselves can it be removed or not. - For every task in tasks.yaml there should be added new condition field with an expression which determines whether the task should be run. In the current implementation tasks are always run for specified roles. For example, vCenter plugin can have a few tasks with conditions like settings:common.libvirt_type.value == 'vcenter' or settings:storage.volumes_vmdk.value == true. Also, AFAIU, similar approach will be used in implementation of Granular Deployment feature. I had some thoughts about using DSL, it seemed to me especially helpfull when you need to disable part of embedded into core functionality, like deploying with another hypervisor, or network dirver (contrail for example). And DSL wont cover all cases here, this quite similar to metadata.yaml, simple cases can be covered by some variables in tasks (like group, unique, etc), but complex is easier to test and describe in python. Could you please provide example of such conditions? vCenter and Ceph can be turned into plugins using this approach. Also, I'm not against python version of plugins. It could look like a python class with exactly the same fields form YAML files, but conditions will be written in python. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Vitaly Kramskikh, Software Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
Dmitry, 2014-11-29 1:01 GMT+04:00 Dmitry Borodaenko dborodae...@mirantis.com: Vitaly, It's there a document or spec or a wiki page that describes the current status of this discussion in the context of the whole pluggable architecture design? There is a spec for the current implementation https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-specs/blob/master/specs/6.0/cinder-neutron-plugins-in-fuel.rst. Here I'm trying to propose changes which allow to turn more complex things like Ceph and vCenter into plugins. That's it. Jumping into this thread without having the whole picture is hard. Knowing what is already agreed, what is implemented so far, and having a structured summary of points of disagreement with pro and contra arguments would help a lot. Well, there is a problem with pro and contra arguments because currently the discussion looks like Your proposal is wrong and complicated and stuff, but I still don't have my own proposal. So I think it could be a better idea to wait for proposal from Evgeniy and then we'll be able to make a list of pro and contra arguments. On Nov 28, 2014 9:48 AM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Folks, Please participate in this discussion. We already have a few meetings on this topic and there is still no decision. I understand entry level is pretty high, but please find some time for this. Evgeniy, Responses inline: 2014-11-28 20:03 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Yes, but is already used in a few places. I want to notice once again - even a simple LBaaS plugin with a single checkbox needed to utilize this functionality. Yes, but you don't need to specify it in each task. Just by adding conditions to tasks we will be able to pluginize all current functionality that can be pluginized. On the other hand, 1 line will be added to task definition and you are concerned about this that much that you want to create a separate interface for complex plugins. Am I right? So, you're still calling this interface complicated. Ok, I'm looking forward to seeing your proposal about dealing with complex plugins. All my concerns were related to simple plugins and that we should find a way not to force a plugin developer to do this copy-paste work. I don't understand what copy-paste work you are talking about. Copying conditions from tasks to is_removable? Yes, it will be so in most cases, but not always, so we need to give a plugin writer a way to define is_removable manually. If you are talking about copypasting conditions between tasks (though I don't understand why we need a few tasks with the same conditions), YAML links can be used - we use them a lot in openstack.yaml. If you have several checkboxes, then it is a complex plugin with complex configuration ... Here we need a definition of s simple plugins, in the current release with simple plugins you can define some fields on the UI (not a single checkbox) and run several tasks if plugin is enabled. Ok, we can define simple plugin as a plugin which doesn't require modification of generated YAML files at all. But with proposed approach there is no need to somehow separate simple and complex plugins. Thanks, On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Evgeniy, Responses inline: 2014-11-28 18:31 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Hi Vitaly, I agree with you that conditions can be useful in case of complicated plugins, but at the same time in case of simple cases it adds a huge amount of complexity. I would like to avoid forcing user to know about any conditions if he wants to add several text fields on the UI. I have several reasons why we shouldn't do that: 1. conditions are described with yet another language with it's own syntax Yes, but is already used in a few places. I want to notice once again - even a simple LBaaS plugin with a single checkbox needed to utilize this functionality. 2. the language is not documented (solvable) It is documented: http://docs.mirantis.com/fuel-dev/develop/nailgun/customization/settings.html#expression-syntax 3. complicated interface will lead to a lot of bugs for the end user, and it will be a Fuel team's problem So, you're still calling this interface complicated. Ok, I'm looking forward to seeing your proposal about dealing with complex plugins. 4. in case of several checkboxes you'll have to write a huge conditions with a lot of and statements and it'll be really easy to forget about some of them If you have several checkboxes, then it is a complex plugin with complex configuration, so I see no problem here. There will be many more places where you can forget stuff. As result in simple cases plugin developer will have to specify the same condition of every task in tasks.yaml file, add it to metadata.yaml. If you add new checkbox, you should go through all of this files, add and lbaas:new_checkbox_name statement.
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
I think it's necessary to start a working group for plugins and meet by weekly until issues like these are flushed out of the design ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
Hi Vitaly, I agree with you that conditions can be useful in case of complicated plugins, but at the same time in case of simple cases it adds a huge amount of complexity. I would like to avoid forcing user to know about any conditions if he wants to add several text fields on the UI. I have several reasons why we shouldn't do that: 1. conditions are described with yet another language with it's own syntax 2. the language is not documented (solvable) 3. complicated interface will lead to a lot of bugs for the end user, and it will be a Fuel team's problem 4. in case of several checkboxes you'll have to write a huge conditions with a lot of and statements and it'll be really easy to forget about some of them As result in simple cases plugin developer will have to specify the same condition of every task in tasks.yaml file, add it to metadata.yaml. If you add new checkbox, you should go through all of this files, add and lbaas:new_checkbox_name statement. Thanks, On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Folks, In the 6.0 release we'll support simple plugins for Fuel. The current architecture allows to create only very simple plugins and doesn't allow to pluginize complex features like Ceph, vCenter, etc. I'd like to propose some changes to make it possible. They are subtle enough and the plugin template still can be autogenerated by Fuel Plugin Builder. Here they are: https://github.com/vkramskikh/fuel-plugins/commit/1ddb166731fc4bf614f502b276eb136687cb20cf 1. environment_config.yaml should contain exact config which will be mixed into cluster_attributes. No need to implicitly generate any controls like it is done now. 2. metadata.yaml should also contain is_removable field. This field is needed to determine whether it is possible to remove installed plugin. It is impossible to remove plugins in the current implementation. This field should contain an expression written in our DSL which we already use in a few places. The LBaaS plugin also uses it to hide the checkbox if Neutron is not used, so even simple plugins like this need to utilize it. This field can also be autogenerated, for more complex plugins plugin writer needs to fix it manually. For example, for Ceph it could look like settings:storage.volumes_ceph.value == false and settings:storage.images_ceph.value == false. 3. For every task in tasks.yaml there should be added new condition field with an expression which determines whether the task should be run. In the current implementation tasks are always run for specified roles. For example, vCenter plugin can have a few tasks with conditions like settings:common.libvirt_type.value == 'vcenter' or settings:storage.volumes_vmdk.value == true. Also, AFAIU, similar approach will be used in implementation of Granular Deployment feature. These simple changes will allow to write much more complex plugins. What do you think? -- Vitaly Kramskikh, Software Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
Evgeniy, Responses inline: 2014-11-28 18:31 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Hi Vitaly, I agree with you that conditions can be useful in case of complicated plugins, but at the same time in case of simple cases it adds a huge amount of complexity. I would like to avoid forcing user to know about any conditions if he wants to add several text fields on the UI. I have several reasons why we shouldn't do that: 1. conditions are described with yet another language with it's own syntax Yes, but is already used in a few places. I want to notice once again - even a simple LBaaS plugin with a single checkbox needed to utilize this functionality. 2. the language is not documented (solvable) It is documented: http://docs.mirantis.com/fuel-dev/develop/nailgun/customization/settings.html#expression-syntax 3. complicated interface will lead to a lot of bugs for the end user, and it will be a Fuel team's problem So, you're still calling this interface complicated. Ok, I'm looking forward to seeing your proposal about dealing with complex plugins. 4. in case of several checkboxes you'll have to write a huge conditions with a lot of and statements and it'll be really easy to forget about some of them If you have several checkboxes, then it is a complex plugin with complex configuration, so I see no problem here. There will be many more places where you can forget stuff. As result in simple cases plugin developer will have to specify the same condition of every task in tasks.yaml file, add it to metadata.yaml. If you add new checkbox, you should go through all of this files, add and lbaas:new_checkbox_name statement. Once again, in simple cases checkbox and the conditions (one for task and one for is_removable) can be easily pregenerated by FPB, so plugin developer has to do nothing more. If you add a new checkbox which doesn't affect plugin removeability and tasks, you have to change nothing in plugin metadata. Thanks, On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Folks, In the 6.0 release we'll support simple plugins for Fuel. The current architecture allows to create only very simple plugins and doesn't allow to pluginize complex features like Ceph, vCenter, etc. I'd like to propose some changes to make it possible. They are subtle enough and the plugin template still can be autogenerated by Fuel Plugin Builder. Here they are: https://github.com/vkramskikh/fuel-plugins/commit/1ddb166731fc4bf614f502b276eb136687cb20cf 1. environment_config.yaml should contain exact config which will be mixed into cluster_attributes. No need to implicitly generate any controls like it is done now. 2. metadata.yaml should also contain is_removable field. This field is needed to determine whether it is possible to remove installed plugin. It is impossible to remove plugins in the current implementation. This field should contain an expression written in our DSL which we already use in a few places. The LBaaS plugin also uses it to hide the checkbox if Neutron is not used, so even simple plugins like this need to utilize it. This field can also be autogenerated, for more complex plugins plugin writer needs to fix it manually. For example, for Ceph it could look like settings:storage.volumes_ceph.value == false and settings:storage.images_ceph.value == false. 3. For every task in tasks.yaml there should be added new condition field with an expression which determines whether the task should be run. In the current implementation tasks are always run for specified roles. For example, vCenter plugin can have a few tasks with conditions like settings:common.libvirt_type.value == 'vcenter' or settings:storage.volumes_vmdk.value == true. Also, AFAIU, similar approach will be used in implementation of Granular Deployment feature. These simple changes will allow to write much more complex plugins. What do you think? -- Vitaly Kramskikh, Software Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Vitaly Kramskikh, Software Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
- environment_config.yaml should contain exact config which will be mixed into cluster_attributes. No need to implicitly generate any controls like it is done now. Initially i had the same thoughts and wanted to use it the way it is, but now i completely agree with Evgeniy that additional DSL will cause a lot of problems with compatibility between versions and developer experience. We need to search for alternatives.. 1. for UI i would prefer separate tab for plugins, where user will be able to enable/disable plugin explicitly. Currently settings tab is overloaded. 2. on backend we need to validate plugins against certain env before enabling it, and for simple case we may expose some basic entities like network_mode. For case where you need complex logic - python code is far more flexible that new DSL. - metadata.yaml should also contain is_removable field. This field is needed to determine whether it is possible to remove installed plugin. It is impossible to remove plugins in the current implementation. This field should contain an expression written in our DSL which we already use in a few places. The LBaaS plugin also uses it to hide the checkbox if Neutron is not used, so even simple plugins like this need to utilize it. This field can also be autogenerated, for more complex plugins plugin writer needs to fix it manually. For example, for Ceph it could look like settings:storage.volumes_ceph.value == false and settings:storage.images_ceph.value == false. How checkbox will help? There is several cases of plugin removal.. 1. Plugin is installed, but not enabled for any env - just remove the plugin 2. Plugin is installed, enabled and cluster deployed - forget about it for now.. 3. Plugin is installed and only enabled - we need to maintain state of db consistent after plugin is removed, it is problematic, but possible My main point that plugin is enabled/disabled explicitly by user, after that we can decide ourselves can it be removed or not. - For every task in tasks.yaml there should be added new condition field with an expression which determines whether the task should be run. In the current implementation tasks are always run for specified roles. For example, vCenter plugin can have a few tasks with conditions like settings:common.libvirt_type.value == 'vcenter' or settings:storage.volumes_vmdk.value == true. Also, AFAIU, similar approach will be used in implementation of Granular Deployment feature. I had some thoughts about using DSL, it seemed to me especially helpfull when you need to disable part of embedded into core functionality, like deploying with another hypervisor, or network dirver (contrail for example). And DSL wont cover all cases here, this quite similar to metadata.yaml, simple cases can be covered by some variables in tasks (like group, unique, etc), but complex is easier to test and describe in python. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
Vitaly, It's there a document or spec or a wiki page that describes the current status of this discussion in the context of the whole pluggable architecture design? Jumping into this thread without having the whole picture is hard. Knowing what is already agreed, what is implemented so far, and having a structured summary of points of disagreement with pro and contra arguments would help a lot. On Nov 28, 2014 9:48 AM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Folks, Please participate in this discussion. We already have a few meetings on this topic and there is still no decision. I understand entry level is pretty high, but please find some time for this. Evgeniy, Responses inline: 2014-11-28 20:03 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Yes, but is already used in a few places. I want to notice once again - even a simple LBaaS plugin with a single checkbox needed to utilize this functionality. Yes, but you don't need to specify it in each task. Just by adding conditions to tasks we will be able to pluginize all current functionality that can be pluginized. On the other hand, 1 line will be added to task definition and you are concerned about this that much that you want to create a separate interface for complex plugins. Am I right? So, you're still calling this interface complicated. Ok, I'm looking forward to seeing your proposal about dealing with complex plugins. All my concerns were related to simple plugins and that we should find a way not to force a plugin developer to do this copy-paste work. I don't understand what copy-paste work you are talking about. Copying conditions from tasks to is_removable? Yes, it will be so in most cases, but not always, so we need to give a plugin writer a way to define is_removable manually. If you are talking about copypasting conditions between tasks (though I don't understand why we need a few tasks with the same conditions), YAML links can be used - we use them a lot in openstack.yaml. If you have several checkboxes, then it is a complex plugin with complex configuration ... Here we need a definition of s simple plugins, in the current release with simple plugins you can define some fields on the UI (not a single checkbox) and run several tasks if plugin is enabled. Ok, we can define simple plugin as a plugin which doesn't require modification of generated YAML files at all. But with proposed approach there is no need to somehow separate simple and complex plugins. Thanks, On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Evgeniy, Responses inline: 2014-11-28 18:31 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com: Hi Vitaly, I agree with you that conditions can be useful in case of complicated plugins, but at the same time in case of simple cases it adds a huge amount of complexity. I would like to avoid forcing user to know about any conditions if he wants to add several text fields on the UI. I have several reasons why we shouldn't do that: 1. conditions are described with yet another language with it's own syntax Yes, but is already used in a few places. I want to notice once again - even a simple LBaaS plugin with a single checkbox needed to utilize this functionality. 2. the language is not documented (solvable) It is documented: http://docs.mirantis.com/fuel-dev/develop/nailgun/customization/settings.html#expression-syntax 3. complicated interface will lead to a lot of bugs for the end user, and it will be a Fuel team's problem So, you're still calling this interface complicated. Ok, I'm looking forward to seeing your proposal about dealing with complex plugins. 4. in case of several checkboxes you'll have to write a huge conditions with a lot of and statements and it'll be really easy to forget about some of them If you have several checkboxes, then it is a complex plugin with complex configuration, so I see no problem here. There will be many more places where you can forget stuff. As result in simple cases plugin developer will have to specify the same condition of every task in tasks.yaml file, add it to metadata.yaml. If you add new checkbox, you should go through all of this files, add and lbaas:new_checkbox_name statement. Once again, in simple cases checkbox and the conditions (one for task and one for is_removable) can be easily pregenerated by FPB, so plugin developer has to do nothing more. If you add a new checkbox which doesn't affect plugin removeability and tasks, you have to change nothing in plugin metadata. Thanks, On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh vkramsk...@mirantis.com wrote: Folks, In the 6.0 release we'll support simple plugins for Fuel. The current architecture allows to create only very simple plugins and doesn't allow to pluginize complex features like Ceph, vCenter, etc. I'd like to propose some changes to make it possible. They are subtle
[openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Plugins] Further development of plugin metadata format
Folks, In the 6.0 release we'll support simple plugins for Fuel. The current architecture allows to create only very simple plugins and doesn't allow to pluginize complex features like Ceph, vCenter, etc. I'd like to propose some changes to make it possible. They are subtle enough and the plugin template still can be autogenerated by Fuel Plugin Builder. Here they are: https://github.com/vkramskikh/fuel-plugins/commit/1ddb166731fc4bf614f502b276eb136687cb20cf 1. environment_config.yaml should contain exact config which will be mixed into cluster_attributes. No need to implicitly generate any controls like it is done now. 2. metadata.yaml should also contain is_removable field. This field is needed to determine whether it is possible to remove installed plugin. It is impossible to remove plugins in the current implementation. This field should contain an expression written in our DSL which we already use in a few places. The LBaaS plugin also uses it to hide the checkbox if Neutron is not used, so even simple plugins like this need to utilize it. This field can also be autogenerated, for more complex plugins plugin writer needs to fix it manually. For example, for Ceph it could look like settings:storage.volumes_ceph.value == false and settings:storage.images_ceph.value == false. 3. For every task in tasks.yaml there should be added new condition field with an expression which determines whether the task should be run. In the current implementation tasks are always run for specified roles. For example, vCenter plugin can have a few tasks with conditions like settings:common.libvirt_type.value == 'vcenter' or settings:storage.volumes_vmdk.value == true. Also, AFAIU, similar approach will be used in implementation of Granular Deployment feature. These simple changes will allow to write much more complex plugins. What do you think? -- Vitaly Kramskikh, Software Engineer, Mirantis, Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
