[Proposal] Plan support #294
Conversation
eriknelson
force-pushed
the
plans-support-changes
branch
from
89ef012
to
e9a6c95
Compare
eriknelson
force-pushed
the
plans-support-changes
branch
from
e9a6c95
to
ca2bf88
Compare
eriknelson
force-pushed
the
plans-support-changes
branch
from
49cfe16
to
9645fff
Compare
docs/specs/apb.yml-plan-support.md
Outdated
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| 3) Move any example of a `[]map[string]T` to `[]T`. The former introduced an entirely | ||
| unecessary map layer. They started to get nested after moving params onto plans and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TYPO: unecessary -> unnecessary
docs/specs/apb.yml-plan-support.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| 3) Move any example of a `[]map[string]T` to `[]T`. The former introduced an entirely | ||
| unecessary map layer. They started to get nested after moving params onto plans and | ||
| things got very ugly because of it. Reintroduce `name` onto `T`s. |
| title: Mediawiki Site Name | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Should use this pattern for any additional changes moving forward. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 this make it more explicit and consistent. It also makes parsing it broker side that much easier.
| ## Questions | ||
|
|
||
| * Obviously this is a large, breaking change to **all** existing APBs and their `apb.yml` files. | ||
| How do we want to make across the board so things get rolled out as smoothly as possible? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I say we do the following:
- update all the apbs in apb-examples with the new plan stuff
- update the apb tooling so that it generates a default plan
- rebuild all apbs after merging the above examples changes
- merge broker and rebuild broker image
- test it all
| How do we want to make across the board so things get rolled out as smoothly as possible? | ||
| * Is this a good opportunity to have the broker start respecting the version label found on | ||
| apbs? I think it makes sense to have that in lock setup with broker release versions. Is | ||
| broker master considered `0.10` since it's `release-0.9++`? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The version in the ansible-service-broker rpm spec is currently 1.0.0 in master. We have not built an rpm from this spec yet so we can change it if we want to go do 0.10.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy with 1.0.0 since that's likely what we will release as under GA, right?
| longDescription: This plan provides a single non-HA PostgreSQL server with persistent storage | ||
| cost: $5.99 monthly | ||
| parameters: *_p | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be nice to see a simple example of not using the references so folks know you can also put the parameters inline with the plan.
docs/specs/apb.yml-plan-support.md
Outdated
| displayName: PostgreSQL (APB) | ||
| console.openshift.io/iconClass: icon-postgresql | ||
| dependencies: | ||
| - postgresql_version |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a typo, dependencies has been moved up to the metadata.
|
@jmrodri Updated based on your feedback, +1 re: single param set example. |
No description provided.