🌱 Add design doc for OpenStackServer #2021

mdbooth · 2024-04-16T16:58:44Z

Design proposal for #2020

/hold

netlify · 2024-04-16T16:59:06Z

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`9b05e94`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack/deploys/661fc31e4cf1760008165153
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2021--kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

mdbooth · 2024-04-16T17:13:00Z

@lentzi90 Meta point: I recall you doing something similar before, but I can't find it to re-use it. I'm thinking of writing 2-4 of these in fairly quick succession, so it might be an opportunity to try to make something stick. If we have a better process already I'll switch to that instead.

Hoping to write them for:

This (obvs)
External endpoint controllers
Spine-leaf deployments

The latter likely has tentacles and may turn in to more than one (e.g. separate doc for failure domains).

My thoughts on this are:

Strictly for 'big' changes only, where 'big' is ill-defined.
Numeric prefix is the ID of an associated feature request which may just be a stub
We can and should merge to docs in proposed fairly freely without requiring consensus. This makes change tracking easier, and we can always delete it if we end up not planning to implement it after all.
Consensus is required to move out of the proposed directory.

Purposes:

Design review
Discussion reference for users or external stakeholders (e.g. CAPI/OpenShift)
Implementation guide
A roadmap of sorts

jichenjc

thanks for the great summary, it's really helpful
just one minor question

jichenjc · 2024-04-17T03:08:13Z

design/proposed/2020-openstackserver-controller.md

+
+
+```go
+type OpenStackServerSpec struct {


is there anything we need to do for existing customer to move to here? transparent or need define those ?

That's a great point. I should make it clear in the doc that this change will happen automatically and the end user does not need to take any action. I'll update the doc.

I've just pushed a small change which adds:

The upgrade is automatic and will not recreate existing OpenStack resources

The new API will be in v1alpha1

lentzi90

Looks good overall. I have no objections 🙂

lentzi90 · 2024-04-19T12:00:13Z

design/proposed/2020-openstackserver-controller.md

+* A Volume specified with `from: Machine` will use the value of `AvailabilityZone` instead of `Machine.FailureDomain`.
+
+It will set the following `Conditions`:
+* `Ready`: `True` when the server is fully provisioned. Once set to `True` will never be subsequently set to `False`.


It sounds strange to me to never change it back, even though we could have Failed=True. Is that intentional?
So we could have Ready=True and Failed=True at the same time 🤔

How about 3 Conditions:

Provisioned: a latch which is never set to false after the server has been provisioned

Ready: an ephemeral 'readiness' state. Can be false due to transient errors.

Failed: permanent failure. No further reconciliation. Never set to false after being set to true.

lentzi90 · 2024-04-19T12:06:23Z

The previous thing I did is not merged so that's probably why you didn't find it 😄
For that I used date-based naming because I just copied what CAPI does. They also have a template if you want to steal it. I have no strong opinion on this though. 😄

EmilienM · 2024-04-22T12:46:21Z

Awesome proposal 👍

dulek · 2024-04-23T11:25:47Z

design/proposed/2020-openstackserver-controller.md

+	if server spec does not match bastion.Spec {
+		deleteOpenStackServer(bastion)
+		return
+	}


Don't we need to modify the OpenStackCluster here too to force an event?

EmilienM · 2024-04-24T15:39:21Z

design/proposed/2020-openstackserver-controller.md

+	ServerGroup            *ServerGroupParam
+	IdentityRef            *OpenStackIdentityReference
+	FloatingIPPoolRef      *corev1.TypedLocalObjectReference
+	UserDataRef            *corev1.TypedLocalObjectReference


so you want a new object for this one? Any reason why not passing a string anymore?

EmilienM · 2024-04-24T15:44:35Z

design/proposed/2020-openstackserver-controller.md

+* ProviderID is not present: this is a Machine property
+* UserDataRef is added. If present it must exist.
+* AvailabilityZone is added, and refers explicitly
+* It is an error for Ports to be empty. Defaulting the cluster network must be done by the controller creating the object.


for ports in the OpenStackServerSpec? Do we want the same API as OpenStackMachineSpec ?

EmilienM · 2024-04-24T15:52:15Z

/lgtm
we can iterate later on the design but I think overall it's a solid start.

huxcrux · 2024-04-26T10:05:38Z

I'm a bit late to the party however think the proposal sounds good 👍
/lgtm

mdbooth · 2024-04-30T10:47:58Z

I'm going to move this around to conform to the pattern set by #1565

lentzi90 · 2024-05-24T12:31:00Z

Do we want to include a paragraph or two about if/how this could be used for MachinePool support in CAPO? From my understanding we would "just" need to add one higher level "pool" object to handle OpenStackServers in order to achieve that.

mdbooth · 2024-05-28T13:47:22Z

Do we want to include a paragraph or two about if/how this could be used for MachinePool support in CAPO? From my understanding we would "just" need to add one higher level "pool" object to handle OpenStackServers in order to achieve that.

What would this look like? I think MachinePool is for when the cloud has some efficiently-implemented native concept of a scalable set of machines. I don't think we have that in OpenStack?

lentzi90 · 2024-05-29T06:09:53Z

Do we want to include a paragraph or two about if/how this could be used for MachinePool support in CAPO? From my understanding we would "just" need to add one higher level "pool" object to handle OpenStackServers in order to achieve that.

What would this look like? I think MachinePool is for when the cloud has some efficiently-implemented native concept of a scalable set of machines. I don't think we have that in OpenStack?

Good point. I think it would be doable, but we would end up with all the logic in CAPO to manage the pool, which is not ideal. Forget that I mentioned it 😅

EmilienM · 2024-05-29T11:49:48Z

design/proposed/2020-openstackserver-controller.md

+In the same way that OpenStackMachine currently has an 'adoption' phase where it will adopt existing resources, OpenStackServer should adopt matching resources which it would have created. On upgrade to a new version of CAPO which manages the bastion with an OpenStackServer object, I would expect the flow to be:
+
+* Cluster controller creates OpenStackServer and waits for it to report Ready
+* OpenStackServer controller looks for existing resources matching its given spec


This part is a bit tricky, we'll need to compare every field out of instanceStatus, I started to play with it and it became messy.
Not against this idea, just making sure we really want to go down that path.

The risk of not doing that is that an instance would be adopted by OpenStackServer that wouldn't be matching 100% the spec if the instance would have been created by the OpenStackServer controller.

I was thinking the adoption behaviour would be identical to what we currently do in the OpenStackMachine controller. Literally the same code. We're basically just adopting by name.

EmilienM · 2024-07-25T15:02:40Z

/hold cancel
/approve
we can merge the design since the implementation has merged.

k8s-ci-robot · 2024-07-25T15:02:47Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: EmilienM

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [EmilienM]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

EmilienM · 2024-07-25T15:03:29Z

I'm expediting this but that doesn't mean we can't iterate on the design document that was initially proposed.

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Apr 16, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from dulek April 16, 2024 16:58

k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Apr 16, 2024

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from lentzi90 April 16, 2024 16:58

k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Apr 16, 2024

mdbooth force-pushed the openstackserver-controller branch from 54cc388 to 703fff8 Compare April 16, 2024 16:59

mdbooth mentioned this pull request Apr 16, 2024

Improve the robustness of Bastion creation and deletion #2020

Open

jichenjc reviewed Apr 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

Add design doc for OpenStackServer

9b05e94

mdbooth force-pushed the openstackserver-controller branch from 703fff8 to 9b05e94 Compare April 17, 2024 12:39

lentzi90 reviewed Apr 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

dulek reviewed Apr 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

EmilienM reviewed Apr 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned EmilienM Apr 24, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 24, 2024

k8s-ci-robot assigned huxcrux Apr 26, 2024

EmilienM mentioned this pull request May 20, 2024

✨ New CRD + controller for OpenStackServer (v1alpha1) #2067

Merged

10 tasks

EmilienM reviewed May 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jul 25, 2024

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 25, 2024

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 16d4e87 into kubernetes-sigs:main Jul 25, 2024
9 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

🌱 Add design doc for OpenStackServer #2021

🌱 Add design doc for OpenStackServer #2021

mdbooth commented Apr 16, 2024

netlify bot commented Apr 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mdbooth commented Apr 16, 2024

jichenjc left a comment

jichenjc Apr 17, 2024

mdbooth Apr 17, 2024

mdbooth Apr 17, 2024

lentzi90 left a comment

lentzi90 Apr 19, 2024

mdbooth May 31, 2024

lentzi90 commented Apr 19, 2024

EmilienM commented Apr 22, 2024

dulek Apr 23, 2024

EmilienM Apr 24, 2024

EmilienM Apr 24, 2024

EmilienM commented Apr 24, 2024

huxcrux commented Apr 26, 2024

mdbooth commented Apr 30, 2024

lentzi90 commented May 24, 2024

mdbooth commented May 28, 2024

lentzi90 commented May 29, 2024

EmilienM May 29, 2024

mdbooth May 30, 2024

EmilienM commented Jul 25, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 25, 2024

EmilienM commented Jul 25, 2024



		```go
		type OpenStackServerSpec struct {

🌱 Add design doc for OpenStackServer #2021

🌱 Add design doc for OpenStackServer #2021

Conversation

mdbooth commented Apr 16, 2024

netlify bot commented Apr 16, 2024 • edited Loading

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-openstack ready!

mdbooth commented Apr 16, 2024

jichenjc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lentzi90 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lentzi90 commented Apr 19, 2024

EmilienM commented Apr 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

EmilienM commented Apr 24, 2024

huxcrux commented Apr 26, 2024

mdbooth commented Apr 30, 2024

lentzi90 commented May 24, 2024

mdbooth commented May 28, 2024

lentzi90 commented May 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

EmilienM commented Jul 25, 2024

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 25, 2024

EmilienM commented Jul 25, 2024

netlify bot commented Apr 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading