Update specs template
Partially merge changes to the specs template from Rocky nova-specs. Still leaving out stuff that shouldn't apply to nova-powervm, like notifications and REST API changes. Change-Id: If2df2b278ba555cf4d5d04cca19079c2749ca202
This commit is contained in:
parent
124e52062a
commit
48f44b02e6
|
@ -17,16 +17,33 @@ prose that operators can understand. The title and this first paragraph
|
|||
should be used as the subject line and body of the commit message
|
||||
respectively.
|
||||
|
||||
Some notes about using this template:
|
||||
Some notes about the nova-powervm spec and blueprint process:
|
||||
|
||||
* Not all blueprints need a spec. For more information see
|
||||
https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/blueprints.html#specs
|
||||
|
||||
* The aim of this document is first to define the problem we need to solve,
|
||||
and second agree the overall approach to solve that problem.
|
||||
|
||||
* This is not intended to be extensive documentation for a new feature.
|
||||
For example, there is no need to specify the exact configuration changes,
|
||||
nor the exact details of any DB model changes. But you should still define
|
||||
that such changes are required, and be clear on how that will affect
|
||||
upgrades.
|
||||
|
||||
* You should aim to get your spec approved before writing your code.
|
||||
While you are free to write prototypes and code before getting your spec
|
||||
approved, its possible that the outcome of the spec review process leads
|
||||
you towards a fundamentally different solution than you first envisaged.
|
||||
|
||||
* But, API changes are held to a much higher level of scrutiny.
|
||||
As soon as an API change merges, we must assume it could be in production
|
||||
somewhere, and as such, we then need to support that API change forever.
|
||||
To avoid getting that wrong, we do want lots of details about API changes
|
||||
upfront.
|
||||
|
||||
Some notes about using this template:
|
||||
|
||||
* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
|
||||
|
||||
* Please wrap text at 79 columns.
|
||||
|
@ -50,6 +67,13 @@ Some notes about using this template:
|
|||
having to look at additional files which can not be viewed in gerrit. It
|
||||
will also allow inline feedback on the diagram itself.
|
||||
|
||||
* If your specification proposes any changes to the Nova REST API such
|
||||
as changing parameters which can be returned or accepted, or even
|
||||
the semantics of what happens when a client calls into the API, then
|
||||
you should add the APIImpact flag to the commit message. Specifications with
|
||||
the APIImpact flag can be found with the following query:
|
||||
|
||||
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova-powervm+message:apiimpact,n,z
|
||||
|
||||
Problem description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
@ -57,7 +81,6 @@ Problem description
|
|||
A detailed description of the problem. What problem is this blueprint
|
||||
addressing?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Use Cases
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -65,7 +88,6 @@ What use cases does this address? What impact on actors does this change have?
|
|||
Ensure you are clear about the actors in each use case: Developer, End User,
|
||||
Deployer etc.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -75,6 +97,10 @@ propose to solve this problem?
|
|||
If this is one part of a larger effort make it clear where this piece ends. In
|
||||
other words, what's the scope of this effort?
|
||||
|
||||
At this point, if you would like to just get feedback on if the problem and
|
||||
proposed change fit in nova-powervm, you can stop here and post this for review
|
||||
to get preliminary feedback. If so please say:
|
||||
Posting to get preliminary feedback on the scope of this spec.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
@ -83,7 +109,6 @@ What other ways could we do this thing? Why aren't we using those? This doesn't
|
|||
have to be a full literature review, but it should demonstrate that thought has
|
||||
been put into why the proposed solution is an appropriate one.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Security impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -92,6 +117,9 @@ consider include:
|
|||
|
||||
* Does this change touch sensitive data such as tokens, keys, or user data?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change alter the API in a way that may impact security, such as
|
||||
a new way to access sensitive information or a new way to login?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change involve cryptography or hashing?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change require the use of sudo or any elevated privileges?
|
||||
|
@ -115,7 +143,7 @@ End user impact
|
|||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
How would the end user be impacted by this change? The "End User" is defined
|
||||
as the users of the deployed cloud?
|
||||
as the users of the deployed cloud.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
|
@ -130,6 +158,10 @@ Examples of things to consider here include:
|
|||
* A small change in a utility function or a commonly used decorator can have a
|
||||
large impacts on performance.
|
||||
|
||||
* Calls which result in a database queries (whether direct or via conductor)
|
||||
can have a profound impact on performance when called in critical sections of
|
||||
the code.
|
||||
|
||||
* Will the change include any locking, and if so what considerations are there
|
||||
on holding the lock?
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -159,6 +191,24 @@ Developer impact
|
|||
Discuss things that will affect other developers working on the driver or
|
||||
OpenStack in general.
|
||||
|
||||
Upgrade impact
|
||||
--------------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe any potential upgrade impact on the system, such as:
|
||||
|
||||
* If this change adds a new feature to the compute host that the controller
|
||||
services rely on, the controller services may need to check the minimum
|
||||
compute service version in the deployment before using the new feature. For
|
||||
example, in Ocata, the FilterScheduler did not use the Placement API until
|
||||
all compute services were upgraded to at least Ocata.
|
||||
|
||||
* Nova supports N-1 version *nova-compute* services for rolling upgrades. Does
|
||||
the proposed change need to consider older code running that may impact how
|
||||
the new change functions, for example, by changing or overwriting global
|
||||
state in the database? This is generally most problematic when making changes
|
||||
that involve multiple compute hosts, like move operations such as migrate,
|
||||
resize, unshelve and evacuate.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
@ -206,21 +256,30 @@ Testing
|
|||
Please discuss the important scenarios needed to test here, as well as
|
||||
specific edge cases we should be ensuring work correctly. For each
|
||||
scenario please specify if this requires specialized hardware, a full
|
||||
openstack environment, etc.
|
||||
openstack environment, or can be simulated inside the nova-powervm tree.
|
||||
|
||||
Please discuss how the change will be tested. We especially want to know what
|
||||
functional tests will be added. It is assumed that unit test coverage will be
|
||||
added so that doesn't need to be mentioned explicitly.
|
||||
tempest tests will be added. It is assumed that unit test coverage will be
|
||||
added so that doesn't need to be mentioned explicitly, but discussion of why
|
||||
you think unit tests are sufficient and we don't need to add more tempest
|
||||
tests would need to be included.
|
||||
|
||||
Is this untestable in gate given current limitations (specific hardware /
|
||||
software configurations available)? If so, are there mitigation plans (3rd
|
||||
party testing, gate enhancements, etc).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
Which audiences are affected most by this change, and which documentation
|
||||
titles should be updated because of this change? Don't repeat details
|
||||
discussed above, but reference them here in the context of documentation
|
||||
for multiple audiences.
|
||||
|
||||
titles on nova-powervm.readthedocs.io should be updated because of this change?
|
||||
Don't repeat details discussed above, but reference them here in the context of
|
||||
documentation for multiple audiences. For example, the Operations Guide targets
|
||||
cloud operators, and the End User Guide would need to be updated if the change
|
||||
offers a new feature available through the CLI or dashboard. If a config option
|
||||
changes or is deprecated, note here that the documentation needs to be updated
|
||||
to reflect this specification's change.
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
@ -245,12 +304,13 @@ History
|
|||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Optional section intended to be used each time the spec is updated to describe
|
||||
new design.
|
||||
new design, API or any database schema updated. Useful to let reader understand
|
||||
what's happened along the time.
|
||||
|
||||
.. list-table:: Revisions
|
||||
:header-rows: 1
|
||||
|
||||
* - Release Name
|
||||
- Description
|
||||
* - Mitaka
|
||||
* - Rocky
|
||||
- Introduced
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue