From rhallise at redhat.com Tue Apr 3 14:43:49 2018 From: rhallise at redhat.com (Ryan Hallisey) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 10:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Fwd: [ccpeng] catasb / oc cluster up issues In-Reply-To: References: <0d3e5059-de51-af21-59c2-62753722d4e7@redhat.com> Message-ID: There have been issues deploying 3.10 with oc cluster up. Here's a way folks can deploy on openshift 3.9 with the release-1.1 broker or with the master branch broker. - Ryan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Hallisey Date: Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [ccpeng] catasb / oc cluster up issues To: Jason Montleon Cc: ccpeng-team This has been working for me too. Jason, thanks for the info. To add to this, I deploy on 3.9 then I redeploy the broker from the master branch. curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openshift/ansible-service- broker/release-1.1/templates/deploy-ansible-service-broker.template.yaml | oc process -f - | oc delete -f - curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openshift/ansible-service- broker/master/scripts/run_latest_build.sh | bash - - Ryan On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:11 AM, Jason Montleon wrote: > v3.10/latest looks to be busted right now, with regards to the > service-catalog controller-manager. https://github.com/openshift/o > rigin/issues/19163 > > I have not had any luck applying permissions that allow it to run properly. > > > If you need to get a broker up for development I've had luck with the > - release-1.1 branch of catasb > - docker cp $(docker create docker.io/openshift/origin:v3.9):/usr/bin/oc > ~/bin/oc > > - and a config/my_vars.yml like: > --- > dockerhub_org: ansibleplaybookbundle > local_oc_client: true > origin_image_tag: v3.9 > asb_template_url: https://raw.githubusercontent. > com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/release-1.1/templates/d > eploy-ansible-service-broker.template.yaml > -- > Jason Montleon | email: jmontleo at redhat.com > Software Engineer | gpg key: 0x069E3022 > Red Hat, Inc. | irc: jmontleo > desk: 978-392-3930 | cell: 508-496-0663 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dzager at redhat.com Tue Apr 3 19:24:20 2018 From: dzager at redhat.com (David Zager) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:24:20 +0000 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Sprint 146 Release Notes Message-ID: Other Enhancements - Add breadcrumbs to release notes (#820) - adding a blank line to the help output (#826) - remove extra deletion of extracted credentials in broker package (#825) - return the token for a unbind in progress (#824) - Default to an open localregistry policy (#827) - Add a note to run latest about current user (#829) - make headings smaller (#831) - pass provision credentials during deprovision (#821) - Proposal for Helm Chart Registry Adapter (#830) - APB state support (#809) - Format nits (#836) - Display Custom Error Message for the APB via termination-log (#837) - Only grab the token the broker sa is using (#844) - Create CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md (#841) - Reformatted (#845) - minor updates to proposal to clarify a few points (#842) - make username available for APB in the serviceInstance (#832) - Add dep to travis (#849) - Use bundle lib (#848) - Use the correct versions (#854) - Pull the latest ansible version in travis scripts (#856) - Make a not to give the developer use cluster-admin (#857) - Warn in the logs that a spec failed to load and continue (#855) - make more than one stage for all the tasks we want to do. (#863) - make CRD the defaults for all templates (#838) - removing config package from bundle lib. bump to new release (#860) - Fix docs - enabling RBAC for minikube (#862) - Add migration command (#870) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesusr at redhat.com Wed Apr 4 22:16:41 2018 From: jesusr at redhat.com (jesusr at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 18:16:41 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] OSB call summary 4/3 Message-ID: <1522880201.7232.15.camel@redhat.com> The Open Service Broker API spec group meets every Tuesday @ 12:30pm ET. Here is a summary from this weeks call. * team attendees: Jesus & Michael * Short call this week in preparation for the F2F next week. * Minor PRs, i.e. missing word edits, etc. * Service dependencies PR was posted: https://github.com/openservicebrokerapi/servicebroker/pull/488 * NOTE: we are looking to comment on this as we have some use cases that need dependencies * A concurrency issue came up https://github.com/openservicebrokerapi/servicebroker/issues/467 That's it for this weeks meeting. There isn't one next week as the F2F will be happening. I'll send a report after the trip with what happened. jesus From cbrookes at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 08:04:44 2018 From: cbrookes at redhat.com (Craig Brookes) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:04:44 +0100 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] OSB call summary 4/3 In-Reply-To: <1522880201.7232.15.camel@redhat.com> References: <1522880201.7232.15.camel@redhat.com> Message-ID: Dependency PR is interesting will definitely take a deeper look into that, thanks for the update On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:16 PM, wrote: > The Open Service Broker API spec group meets every Tuesday @ 12:30pm > ET. > > Here is a summary from this weeks call. > > * team attendees: Jesus & Michael > > * Short call this week in preparation for the F2F next week. > > * Minor PRs, i.e. missing word edits, etc. > > * Service dependencies PR was posted: > https://github.com/openservicebrokerapi/servicebroker/pull/488 > > * NOTE: we are looking to comment on this as we have some use cases > that need dependencies > > * A concurrency issue came up > https://github.com/openservicebrokerapi/servicebroker/issues/467 > > That's it for this weeks meeting. There isn't one next week as the F2F > will be happening. I'll send a report after the trip with what > happened. > > > jesus > > _______________________________________________ > Ansible-service-broker mailing list > Ansible-service-broker at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ansible-service-broker > -- Craig Brookes RHMAP @maleck13 Github -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhallise at redhat.com Thu Apr 5 14:23:14 2018 From: rhallise at redhat.com (Ryan Hallisey) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Automation Broker 4-3-18 IRC Meeting Message-ID: =================================== #asbroker: Automation Broker 4-3-18 =================================== Meeting started by rhallisey at 13:33:09 UTC. The full logs attached. Meeting summary --------------- * Attendance (rhallisey, 13:33:19) * News (rhallisey, 13:34:04) * bundle-lib 0.1.1 (rhallisey, 13:34:22) * Migration command (rhallisey, 13:35:26) * LINK: https://trello.com/c/KlFLeFI0 (rhallisey, 13:35:35) * 3.10 (rhallisey, 13:39:45) * Bugs/Issue triage (rhallisey, 13:41:03) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/868 (rhallisey, 13:41:13) * LINK: https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/ansible-playbook-bundle/issues/253 (rhallisey, 13:44:14) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/818 (rhallisey, 13:49:56) * LINK: https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/46 (rhallisey, 13:50:22) * LINK: https://github.com/dymurray/depro-creds-apb (dymurray, 13:50:23) * LINK: https://github.com/dymurray/depro-creds-apb (rhallisey, 13:50:35) * Features (rhallisey, 13:53:00) * LINK: https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/ansible-playbook-bundle/pull/257 (rhallisey, 13:53:07) * Open Discussion (rhallisey, 13:57:50) * Bundle-lib development environment (rhallisey, 13:57:55) * ACTION: jmrodri: create a PR for folks to add ways how they use bundle-lib (rhallisey, 14:08:01) * Passing Parameters broker (rhallisey, 14:15:33) * ACTION: community: write a proposal to better define _apb params. Let's see if we can split them up into user/system apb params (rhallisey, 14:23:16) * Labeling resources an apb creates (rhallisey, 14:24:59) * LINK: https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/hello-world-apb/blob/master/templates/deployment.yml#L6-L9 for an example (hello-world-apb) (dzager, 14:28:29) * ACTION: rhallisey: write up a PR/proposal to service-bundle contract (rhallisey, 14:29:59) * Automation Broker APB (rhallisey, 14:30:10) * LINK: https://github.com/automationbroker/automation-broker-apb/pull/1 (rhallisey, 14:30:19) Meeting ended at 14:32:15 UTC. Action Items ------------ * jmrodri: create a PR for folks to add ways how they use bundle-lib * community: write a proposal to better define _apb params. Let's see if we can split them up into user/system apb params * rhallisey: write up a PR/proposal to service-bundle contract Action Items, by person ----------------------- * jmrodri * jmrodri: create a PR for folks to add ways how they use bundle-lib * rhallisey * rhallisey: write up a PR/proposal to service-bundle contract * **UNASSIGNED** * community: write a proposal to better define _apb params. Let's see if we can split them up into user/system apb params People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * rhallisey (97) * shurley (45) * jmrodri (44) * mhrivnak (30) * brokerbot (29) * dymurray (20) * ernelson (17) * dzager (14) * jmontleon (4) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- 13:33:09 #startmeeting Automation Broker 4-3-18 13:33:09 Meeting started Tue Apr 3 13:33:09 2018 UTC. The chair is rhallisey. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:33:09 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 13:33:09 The meeting name has been set to 'automation_broker_4-3-18' 13:33:09 rhallisey: startmeeting Meeting Agenda https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mj7bVYJ8NK-TwU_mxeZLprmBBZZ-xOq-Hg4CiD3E6pM/edit?usp=sharing 13:33:19 #topic Attendance 13:33:19 rhallisey: topic 13:33:19 thats better! 13:33:21 o/ 13:33:25 here 13:33:26 present 13:33:42 heyo 13:34:04 #topic News 13:34:04 rhallisey: topic 13:34:20 news - bundle-lib 0.1.1 helm adapter, follow www-authenticate for openshift adapter 13:34:22 #info bundle-lib 0.1.1 13:34:22 rhallisey: info 13:34:46 nice shurley 13:35:00 sorry waws a little quick, also removed automationbroker/config as a dependancy and moved to typed structs 13:35:10 just a heads up for everyone what went in 13:35:15 cool 13:35:26 #info Migration command 13:35:26 rhallisey: info 13:35:28 shurley: nice 13:35:35 #link https://trello.com/c/KlFLeFI0 13:35:35 rhallisey: link 13:35:48 second set of news is migration command is merged and will allow you to move etcd resources to CRDs 13:36:36 that's awesome 13:36:54 shurley, I didn't see, but are there any tests around this? 13:37:10 rhallisey: unit tests? 13:37:52 ya 13:38:09 maybe we could consider having a ci job? 13:38:13 idk just thoughts 13:38:42 shurley, we don't have to cover this now, just throwing it out there 13:38:46 no, being that I am using actual versions of the daos it might be harder to make units tests 13:38:46 +1 that's a good idea. 13:39:00 if someone wants to take that up I am not opposed 13:39:04 just to make sure we don't break the migration on any backports 13:39:21 ok wfm 13:39:28 #info 3.10 release 13:39:28 rhallisey: info 13:39:42 #undo 13:39:42 Removing item from minutes: INFO by rhallisey at 13:39:28 : 3.10 release 13:39:45 #info 3.10 13:39:45 rhallisey: info 13:39:55 3.10 has been a little bumpy 13:40:30 so if folks are having trouble setting up a dev env jmontleon had a useful email on how to get something working on 3.9 13:40:43 I'll probably forward that to the upstream list 13:40:52 rhallisey: +1 13:41:03 #topic Bugs/Issue triage 13:41:04 rhallisey: topic 13:41:13 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/868 13:41:13 rhallisey: link 13:41:56 rhallisey, after I talk to jmatthews and if we decide to keep the release-1.1 branch I was going to change the default tag to v3.9 and the asb_template_url to point at the ansible-service-broker release-1.1 branch template so there's no special config required 13:41:57 mhrivnak, you reported this, but I added it for discussion because I think it's some low hanging fruit 13:41:59 switch branch and go 13:42:11 rhallisey yeah I agree it's low hanging fruit. 13:42:25 jmontleon, awesome, thanks 13:42:36 Perhaps the kind of thing someone could knock out if they finish their sprint work a little early. 13:42:40 rhallisey: it's low, I marked it as tech-debt since it is mostly good for our debugging 13:42:52 and it is to keep the logs informative vs full of noise 13:42:55 mhrivnak, +1 13:42:57 jmrodri FWIW I think it's a little more than that. 13:43:15 It's quite misleading, and it caused me to waste some time debugging a problem that didn't exist. 13:43:26 So I think normal users could easily be thrown off by it. 13:43:36 more than tech-debt? 13:43:40 oh I understand now, +1 13:43:42 Yep. 13:43:58 ok that's all I had for that issue 13:44:01 Certainly it's still relatively low-priority. 13:44:14 #link https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/ansible-playbook-bundle/issues/253 13:44:14 rhallisey: link 13:44:38 rhallisey: for this issue there was a comment to my pnt internal blog post 13:44:57 this is easily possible, at least with minishift docker-env 13:45:02 where they might not have root on a machien to install docker 13:45:05 dymurray, does this require a apb tool change? 13:45:12 or don't have openshift installed locally. 13:45:12 that's what you're doing when you run that command; you're seutp to use the remote cluster 13:45:18 we can emulate that 13:45:19 rhallisey, sorry yeah so quick explanation on this 13:45:42 (there's actually already a branch in the apb code that does this) 13:45:48 there is a desire for developers who are used to having images built in openshift to follow a similar workflow 13:45:49 sort of 13:46:08 so this leads into the PR I linked in the features section 13:46:21 I wrote up a document that should allow the internal registry adapter to work with `oc new-app` 13:46:40 dymurray, +1 13:46:42 But I would love to get other peoples suggestions and potential workarounds documented too. So I would appreciate people testing this out and providing usability improvements 13:47:11 We don't want to follow the minishift process... because most devs won't be able to get the docker certs from the remote cluster 13:47:52 make sense dymurray. Will add any comments in the issue 13:48:05 dymurray: we are calling this a work around right 13:48:06 Yeah, and allowing them direct access to docker on the cluster may be a security concern. 13:48:15 mhrivnak, +1 13:48:17 and that it is not really a "feature" that we support directly? 13:48:21 shurley, yes, just documenting the workaround 13:48:44 shurley, well we *do* support bootstrapping images from the interal openshift registry 13:48:50 so this is just another way to get the image there 13:49:19 Any more issues/bugs folks want to discuss? 13:49:34 dymurray, was the issue with bind creds reaching deprovision solved? 13:49:56 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/818 13:49:56 rhallisey: link 13:50:11 rhallisey, I used mhrivnak's suggestion to create a configmap with the service instance ID 13:50:22 #link https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/46 13:50:22 rhallisey: link 13:50:23 https://github.com/dymurray/depro-creds-apb 13:50:35 #link https://github.com/dymurray/depro-creds-apb 13:50:35 rhallisey: link 13:51:07 so the broker issue can be closed if we agree that we will us the apb-state proposal to solve this use case 13:51:12 use* 13:51:16 +1 13:51:50 ok 13:52:15 Seems reasonable. 13:52:16 dymurray, can you add that to the state proposal? Or issue? 13:52:25 rhallisey, yup 13:52:48 thanks 13:53:00 #topic Features 13:53:00 rhallisey: topic 13:53:07 #link https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/ansible-playbook-bundle/pull/257 13:53:08 rhallisey: link 13:53:33 rhallisey, this is the PR I mentioned earlier. My documented workaround using `oc new-app` 13:54:34 dymurray, gotcha. I think this is covered 13:54:38 +1 13:54:46 anyone want to discuss any more features? 13:55:38 jmontleon, I saw your CFME adaptor PR. Is that something you want to mention? 13:56:50 my understanding is that it allows CFME service to be available in the catalog 13:57:11 rhallisey: that is also my understanding. 13:57:30 cool stuff 13:57:43 ok we'll move to open discussion 13:57:50 #topic Open Discussion 13:57:50 rhallisey: topic 13:57:55 #info Bundle-lib development environment 13:57:55 rhallisey: info 13:58:13 I've done this a number of ways 13:58:37 but I'm curious how other folks are doing dev work with bundle-lib 13:58:45 shurley: had an approach I was interested in 13:58:57 +1 I heard shurley's in scrum I think was interested in that one personally 13:59:10 ernelson: so I have done it two to ways 13:59:25 1. I delete the vendor dir in bundle-lib 13:59:48 and then mv the bundle-lib from the vendor of ASB to a .bak 14:00:04 and then you can build ASB and it will use the GOPATH version 14:00:12 that never seemed to work for me 14:00:21 because it techincally thought those were of a different type for some reason 14:00:28 rhallisey, Yes, it will load Service Templates from CFME and generate APB Specs. Parameters will come from Dialog Fields 14:00:35 you need to delete the vendor of bundle-lib 14:00:49 and have all of its deps either in GOPATH or in the vendor of ASB 14:00:50 definitely did that but I can try again 14:00:58 for the broker vendoring I've been making changes to broker branch, then rsync the files to my samplebroker vendor tree :) 14:01:06 jmontleon, +1 14:01:13 It's more a proof of concept at the moment though (and still being roughed out at this point, so the PR doesn't contain much; although maybe I'll push what I have by EOD) 14:01:17 not ideal but it has been working for me. 14:01:19 jmrodri, nice :) 14:01:43 the other way is to use the source and branch fields in GoPkg.toml 14:01:47 I've also done gendiff for small changes. I'll edit bundle-lib files directly in vendor, then use gendiff to create a patch and apply to the bundle-lib tree 14:02:16 If I have to update the vendor dirs then this is the easiest way 14:02:19 but I haven't found a single way of doing it. Depends on what I'm doing and how fast I need to make the turn around 14:02:29 so you create a branch for bundle lib in your fork 14:02:40 set the source and branch to your fork and your branch 14:03:01 then dev and push to your fork and just run dep ensure -update ..... to get the updated code in ASB 14:03:10 that has been the ways that I do it 14:03:17 one way I did it was to point the bundle-lib repo at git. Then I think I pulled and removed vendor directory inside bundle-lib 14:03:25 that branch field has worked for me, but hasn't worked for quick turn around. I found it most useful for pegging a version I wanted to start from. 14:03:28 ^ I've done this way. Not a short cycle but it works 14:03:47 I've personally been bind mounting the dependency into the consumer's vendor, then I symlink to the actual project at the top level so I can index both projects with ctl_p. Works well, except for the bind mount part. 14:03:50 dep ensure seems to do weird things to me, like take a long time or update a bunch of stuff I didn't expect while I"m working 14:04:00 jmrodri: yeah. I agree, not short at all. It worked for me since I was basically finished with the helm-adapter. 14:04:11 I don't like having a bunch of intermediate steps to propogate changes 14:04:32 right now I'm thinking there isn't one way to do this :) 14:04:49 probably just going to have to share what everyone is doing and choose what suits you 14:05:07 I wonder if it would be useful to document some of these TIPS on our broker docs in developer guide? 14:05:08 agreed jmrodri, I think there might be a few ways. But I think we can all agree it would be good to have a doc or something around this? 14:05:19 jmrodri, +! 14:05:20 +! 14:05:22 +1* 14:05:28 thanks for the excitement rhallisey :) 14:05:39 such excitement much ! 14:05:45 my pinking was glued to shift lol 14:05:52 pinky 14:05:56 I can't type right now... 14:06:26 we can all add our ways of doing it, and folks can pick and choose what works best for them. We could document the long way I think that's using the branch in a fork and dep ensure -update way 14:06:40 make that the first suggestion, then go into the others. 14:07:00 does anyone want to take on starting this doc? 14:07:02 I know gendiff won't work on Mac (at least I don't think they have gendiff :) 14:07:15 I can start it but not until later this week 14:07:16 I think we can have each person contribute a way to do that they use 14:07:21 definitely before next IRC meeting 14:07:46 it will be done before next meeting 14:08:01 #action jmrodri: create a PR for folks to add ways how they use bundle-lib 14:08:01 rhallisey: action 14:08:28 jmrodri, if the pr is up before next meeting that would be awesome. Then we can collaborate on adding other ways in meeting 14:08:41 perfect 14:08:42 rhallisey: jmrodri ernelson 1 last thing 14:08:53 is that eventually/soon they should not be linked 14:08:57 IMO 14:09:17 what should not be linked? 14:09:25 bundle-lib and broker? 14:09:31 they should be seperate steps in an implementation. First the ability to do X thing using hydro/bundle-lib 14:09:38 and then the implementation in broker 14:10:03 that is not the case right now, but I think that is the what we should expect the future to be IMO 14:10:20 I think I'm missing something. 14:10:40 I think the problem we're trying to solve right now is when I need a change in the library I'm using to support the change in the broker I'm working on. 14:11:24 maybe we can add automation to bundle-lib/hydro to build a broker with our changes? 14:11:29 right, and eventually it should be I add a feature to the library and then I change the broker. We should not be working on a feature for the broker 14:11:43 and ultimately once I'm done how those changes get to the respective code bases falls under each projects submission guidelines 14:11:47 I'm not sure I agree, in practice that's how changes are made but there are plently of examples where a change will cross both boundaries and it's a very common pattern to have a main consume + a library with the core logic 14:11:49 we should be adding a feature for bundle-lib and then implementing in the broker 14:12:11 shurley: well I think it will always be BOTH 14:12:32 there will be times where the library is gettnig a change that is needed by something that uses it (not necessarily the broker). 14:12:47 then there are times the broker has a feature that requires a change in the library. 14:13:00 shurley: so your point is valid, but not exclusive 14:13:54 Yeah, I think people often want to develop features in libraries and be able to use the feature in-practice during development. 14:14:33 I have something for the open discussion when an opening arrives 14:14:56 for this topic, let's start with the doc 14:15:04 and we'll move on to other open items 14:15:21 dzager, can you add it to the list 14:15:33 #info Passing Parameters broker 14:15:33 rhallisey: info 14:15:56 I added this one, while consuming the executor code from a new project 14:16:05 rhallisey: +1 14:16:19 I realized how opaque the _apb params are to a caller 14:16:44 especailly becuase some are needed (plan, service_instance_id....) 14:17:16 I was wondering if we could have a quick discussion of ways to maybe make this less of a mystry to a consumer 14:17:41 Would this be improved by changing the service bundle contract to separate these different kinds of inputs, and reflecting that change in the experience here also? 14:17:42 I think mhrivnak had some good thoughts on this 14:17:46 lol 14:18:46 > and reflecting that change in the experience here also? can you elaborate? 14:19:15 mhrivnak: +1, the set of them reflect sort of "system" level parameters that the broker provides 14:19:18 makes sense to capture that in a type 14:19:37 I haven't seen this part of bundle-lib, but speculating... we could separate the two (maybe more) kinds of data, yes as ernelson is describing. 14:19:46 system input vs. user-provided params 14:20:15 It all ends up in one pile when the bundle gets run, but the interface to bundle-lib could receive them separately. 14:20:51 for now, and then eventually we'll separate them in the contract also and change how the input is passed into the pod. 14:21:38 just so I have an action item on this. Where should this change first happen 14:21:39 that makes sense to me. 14:21:40 so I call bundle-lib.DoSomething(userParams, otherEnvironmentalStuffAndContext) 14:22:06 should start with a pr to the contract? 14:22:16 rhallisey probably we need to define an end goal first for how to separate out all the data in a reasonable way. 14:22:22 rhallisey: first thing is an overarching proposal I think. Covering the concept at a high level, then digging into this notion of a system paramters. 14:22:37 jmrodri: +1 14:22:37 mhrivnak: the problem is that right now they all come in the through the APB.ServiceInstance 14:22:43 then dig into how to implement them into bundle-lib and bundles 14:23:00 we need to break up the types of "ServiceInstance" I thihnk 14:23:07 shurley: so they've already been collapsed? 14:23:10 shurley gotcha, yeah I was afraid this might be difficult based on where it was coming from. 14:23:16 #action community: write a proposal to better define _apb params. Let's see if we can split them up into user/system apb params 14:23:16 rhallisey: action 14:23:21 and then you have to make sure to update the conversions and that stuff 14:23:30 a proposal would be nice 14:23:49 thanks for bringing it up shurley. Let's start with a proposal 14:23:50 we can deal with all of this 14:23:55 And this can also be part of the discussion about general improvements to the contract. 14:24:02 just letting you know the current state 14:24:07 mhrivnak: +1 14:24:09 +1 +1 14:24:16 I left that as an action item for the community does anyone want to take that on? 14:24:39 if not, we'll move on 14:24:46 rhallisey: leave it open for now 14:24:47 I have a standing action to move the contract improvement discussion forward. 14:24:53 ok wfm 14:24:59 #topic Labeling resources an apb creates 14:24:59 rhallisey: topic 14:25:09 I noticed this in the template-service-broker 14:25:21 they add a label to each resource a template creates 14:25:39 That would be super-nice. tiller does something similar. 14:25:40 +1 wrt shurley's proposal idea 14:25:49 I was thinking that we could too so that we have an idea what resources an apb created 14:26:21 yeah, and that would make cleanup more definite in cases where deprovision failed or wasn't possible for some reason. 14:26:27 I still don't see how this can be done without action from the APB developer 14:26:33 mhrivnak, ya that's what I was thinking too 14:27:04 dzager identified the key problem I think 14:27:39 I had originally wondered if there was some way to get all the of the objects created by a particular service account, via an audit of sorts and then annotate them after an action is complete 14:27:43 Since a service bundle can create stuff through "any means necessary", it's hard for us to intercept create operations and add a label. 14:27:47 dzager, yes, I'm thinking the apb FQName will be availble in the apb. We can make note that the dev add a label for it 14:28:10 this make belong as a bundle-contract proposal 14:28:18 may* 14:28:29 https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/hello-world-apb/blob/master/templates/deployment.yml#L6-L9 for an example (hello-world-apb) 14:28:43 dzager, +1 14:28:43 It would be good if we can get the service instance ID on the resources. 14:29:07 personally, I think that these are all nice to haves, but I wouldn't want the broker dependant on them 14:29:15 In theory you could provision the same bundle twice in the same namespace, and I think we still want to differentiate them via a label. 14:29:31 shurley, right, I think it's hard to mandate, but it would be good to have 14:29:38 yeah. we have had a lot of good discussion about this. I think adding this to the service bundle contract would be a good start. But we can't really (en)force this behavior 14:29:42 agreed on nice-to-have for now 14:29:46 maybe forever 14:29:59 #action rhallisey: write up a PR/proposal to service-bundle contract 14:29:59 rhallisey: action 14:30:10 #info Automation Broker APB 14:30:10 rhallisey: info 14:30:19 #link https://github.com/automationbroker/automation-broker-apb/pull/1 14:30:19 rhallisey: link 14:30:45 So I got really frustrated over the past few weeks with all of the varying ways of deploying the broker. Enter the automation-broker-apb 14:31:04 woo 14:31:11 I'm still working through some kinks as the k8s_raw does not handle crds or the servicecatalog objects very well 14:31:13 nice 14:31:36 but I am currently able to deploy an 'automation-broker' in the 'automation-broker' and get it talking to the service catalog 14:31:42 very nice 14:31:49 +1 very cool 14:31:57 thanks for bringing it up dzager 14:32:02 I think we're all out of time 14:32:07 thanks folks! 14:32:14 bye :) 14:32:15 #endmeeting -------------- next part -------------- =================================== #asbroker: Automation Broker 4-3-18 =================================== Meeting started by rhallisey at 13:33:09 UTC. The full logs are available at asbroker/2018/asbroker.2018-04-03-13.33.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Attendance (rhallisey, 13:33:19) * News (rhallisey, 13:34:04) * bundle-lib 0.1.1 (rhallisey, 13:34:22) * Migration command (rhallisey, 13:35:26) * LINK: https://trello.com/c/KlFLeFI0 (rhallisey, 13:35:35) * 3.10 (rhallisey, 13:39:45) * Bugs/Issue triage (rhallisey, 13:41:03) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/868 (rhallisey, 13:41:13) * LINK: https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/ansible-playbook-bundle/issues/253 (rhallisey, 13:44:14) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/818 (rhallisey, 13:49:56) * LINK: https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/46 (rhallisey, 13:50:22) * LINK: https://github.com/dymurray/depro-creds-apb (dymurray, 13:50:23) * LINK: https://github.com/dymurray/depro-creds-apb (rhallisey, 13:50:35) * Features (rhallisey, 13:53:00) * LINK: https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/ansible-playbook-bundle/pull/257 (rhallisey, 13:53:07) * Open Discussion (rhallisey, 13:57:50) * Bundle-lib development environment (rhallisey, 13:57:55) * ACTION: jmrodri: create a PR for folks to add ways how they use bundle-lib (rhallisey, 14:08:01) * Passing Parameters broker (rhallisey, 14:15:33) * ACTION: community: write a proposal to better define _apb params. Let's see if we can split them up into user/system apb params (rhallisey, 14:23:16) * Labeling resources an apb creates (rhallisey, 14:24:59) * LINK: https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/hello-world-apb/blob/master/templates/deployment.yml#L6-L9 for an example (hello-world-apb) (dzager, 14:28:29) * ACTION: rhallisey: write up a PR/proposal to service-bundle contract (rhallisey, 14:29:59) * Automation Broker APB (rhallisey, 14:30:10) * LINK: https://github.com/automationbroker/automation-broker-apb/pull/1 (rhallisey, 14:30:19) Meeting ended at 14:32:15 UTC. Action Items ------------ * jmrodri: create a PR for folks to add ways how they use bundle-lib * community: write a proposal to better define _apb params. Let's see if we can split them up into user/system apb params * rhallisey: write up a PR/proposal to service-bundle contract Action Items, by person ----------------------- * jmrodri * jmrodri: create a PR for folks to add ways how they use bundle-lib * rhallisey * rhallisey: write up a PR/proposal to service-bundle contract * **UNASSIGNED** * community: write a proposal to better define _apb params. Let's see if we can split them up into user/system apb params People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * rhallisey (97) * shurley (45) * jmrodri (44) * mhrivnak (30) * brokerbot (29) * dymurray (20) * ernelson (17) * dzager (14) * jmontleon (4) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot From cbrookes at redhat.com Mon Apr 9 13:41:08 2018 From: cbrookes at redhat.com (Craig Brookes) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] release of bundle lib and dependency thoughts Message-ID: While looking at this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564542, I realized that I needed to create a PR against the bundle-lib before I could fix it in the broker. However I will need a new release in order to pick it up. Wondering what folks think to doing a release of the lib? It raises an interesting conundrum for contributors. As most of the logic is in this lib, it seems you will often need a release of the lib before you can create the follow on PR in the broker. Something that the Kubernetes repo has done is have separate repos for things like the client-go but have the actual source back in the main repo and sync to the external repo regularly. Wondering if there was any interest in an approach like this. Making it as simple as possible to expand the broker while still providing a valuable library seems like an ideal sweet spot to me. -- Craig Brookes RHMAP @maleck13 Github -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesusr at redhat.com Mon Apr 9 13:46:51 2018 From: jesusr at redhat.com (jesus m. rodriguez) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 09:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] release of bundle lib and dependency thoughts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <06a34ea8-c27c-4522-83ff-51059362bcb4@redhat.com> I'm okay with doing a release of bundle-lib to release any features already there but I don't think you need a release in order to make follow on prs. the changes to bundle-lib could be copied into the vendor directory of the broker to pick up any changes you are needing. Then prs can be filed separately for bundle-lib and broker. -1 to putting the lib in mainline (it's already in vendor) Sincerely, Jesus ?Sent from Blue ? On Apr 9, 2018, 9:41 AM, at 9:41 AM, Craig Brookes wrote: >While looking at this bug >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564542, I realized that I >needed to create a PR against the bundle-lib before I could fix it in >the >broker. > >However I will need a new release in order to pick it up. Wondering >what >folks think to doing a release of the lib? > >It raises an interesting conundrum for contributors. As most of the >logic >is in this lib, it seems you will often need a release of the lib >before >you can create the follow on PR in the broker. > >Something that the Kubernetes repo has done is have separate repos for >things like the client-go but have the actual source back in the main >repo >and sync to the external repo regularly. Wondering if there was any >interest in an approach like this. > >Making it as simple as possible to expand the broker while still >providing >a valuable library seems like an ideal sweet spot to me. > >-- >Craig Brookes >RHMAP >@maleck13 Github > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Ansible-service-broker mailing list >Ansible-service-broker at redhat.com >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ansible-service-broker From cbrookes at redhat.com Mon Apr 9 13:57:53 2018 From: cbrookes at redhat.com (Craig Brookes) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:57:53 +0100 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] release of bundle lib and dependency thoughts In-Reply-To: <06a34ea8-c27c-4522-83ff-51059362bcb4@redhat.com> References: <06a34ea8-c27c-4522-83ff-51059362bcb4@redhat.com> Message-ID: > > I'm okay with doing a release of bundle-lib to release any features > already there but I don't think you need a release in order to make follow > on prs. the changes to bundle-lib could be copied into the vendor directory > of the broker to pick up any changes you are needing. > > Then prs can be filed separately for bundle-lib and broker. Would these changes not get wiped out if you ran dep ensure? Do we do this before a release or during a build? If running dep ensure would cause problems this approach seems a little scary particularly for reproducible builds as what is in vendor would not be reflected by what is in the lock file. I probably need to go check it out as I am not 100% on this. > -1 to putting the lib in mainline (it's already in vendor) Vendor is kinda special. The approach I am highlighting would remove it from vendor and put it under the main src code. In k8s this is /staging/src/ k8s.io/client-go as an example. Then something automated would sync the latest for that directory to a separate repo for general consumption. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:46 PM, jesus m. rodriguez wrote: > I'm okay with doing a release of bundle-lib to release any features > already there but I don't think you need a release in order to make follow > on prs. the changes to bundle-lib could be copied into the vendor directory > of the broker to pick up any changes you are needing. > > Then prs can be filed separately for bundle-lib and broker. > > -1 to putting the lib in mainline (it's already in vendor) > > Sincerely, > Jesus > > > ?Sent from Blue ? > > On Apr 9, 2018, 9:41 AM, at 9:41 AM, Craig Brookes > wrote: > >While looking at this bug > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564542, I realized that I > >needed to create a PR against the bundle-lib before I could fix it in > >the > >broker. > > > >However I will need a new release in order to pick it up. Wondering > >what > >folks think to doing a release of the lib? > > > >It raises an interesting conundrum for contributors. As most of the > >logic > >is in this lib, it seems you will often need a release of the lib > >before > >you can create the follow on PR in the broker. > > > >Something that the Kubernetes repo has done is have separate repos for > >things like the client-go but have the actual source back in the main > >repo > >and sync to the external repo regularly. Wondering if there was any > >interest in an approach like this. > > > >Making it as simple as possible to expand the broker while still > >providing > >a valuable library seems like an ideal sweet spot to me. > > > >-- > >Craig Brookes > >RHMAP > >@maleck13 Github > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Ansible-service-broker mailing list > >Ansible-service-broker at redhat.com > >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ansible-service-broker > > -- Craig Brookes RHMAP @maleck13 Github -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shurley at redhat.com Mon Apr 9 14:21:37 2018 From: shurley at redhat.com (Shawn Hurley) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 10:21:37 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] release of bundle lib and dependency thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <06a34ea8-c27c-4522-83ff-51059362bcb4@redhat.com> Message-ID: <8EEF149C-F24C-437B-BE41-01554BC70977@redhat.com> > Vendor is kinda special. The approach I am highlighting would remove it from vendor and put it under the main src code. In k8s this is /staging/src/k8s.io/client-go as an example. Then something automated would sync the latest for that directory to a separate repo for general consumption. I believe that kubernetes is attempting to move away from that model anyway. They are moving towards separate PRs from the different repos, you can see an example of how openshift is now dealing with this. I have already done multiple PRs to bundle-lib w/ a release and then a vendor bump PR and then a PR for the changes you need. I believe that this is the correct approach expecially as we move to having many consumers of the bundle lib and not just the broker, we need to make sure that changes that go into bundle-lib don?t break others. Thanks, Shawn > On Apr 9, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Craig Brookes wrote: > > I'm okay with doing a release of bundle-lib to release any features already there but I don't think you need a release in order to make follow on prs. the changes to bundle-lib could be copied into the vendor directory of the broker to pick up any changes you are needing. > > Then prs can be filed separately for bundle-lib and broker. > > Would these changes not get wiped out if you ran dep ensure? Do we do this before a release or during a build? If running dep ensure would cause problems this approach seems a little scary particularly for reproducible builds as what is in vendor would not be reflected by what is in the lock file. I probably need to go check it out as I am not 100% on this. > > > -1 to putting the lib in mainline (it's already in vendor) > > Vendor is kinda special. The approach I am highlighting would remove it from vendor and put it under the main src code. In k8s this is /staging/src/k8s.io/client-go as an example. Then something automated would sync the latest for that directory to a separate repo for general consumption. > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:46 PM, jesus m. rodriguez > wrote: > I'm okay with doing a release of bundle-lib to release any features already there but I don't think you need a release in order to make follow on prs. the changes to bundle-lib could be copied into the vendor directory of the broker to pick up any changes you are needing. > > Then prs can be filed separately for bundle-lib and broker. > > -1 to putting the lib in mainline (it's already in vendor) > > Sincerely, > Jesus > > > ?Sent from Blue ? > > On Apr 9, 2018, 9:41 AM, at 9:41 AM, Craig Brookes > wrote: > >While looking at this bug > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564542 , I realized that I > >needed to create a PR against the bundle-lib before I could fix it in > >the > >broker. > > > >However I will need a new release in order to pick it up. Wondering > >what > >folks think to doing a release of the lib? > > > >It raises an interesting conundrum for contributors. As most of the > >logic > >is in this lib, it seems you will often need a release of the lib > >before > >you can create the follow on PR in the broker. > > > >Something that the Kubernetes repo has done is have separate repos for > >things like the client-go but have the actual source back in the main > >repo > >and sync to the external repo regularly. Wondering if there was any > >interest in an approach like this. > > > >Making it as simple as possible to expand the broker while still > >providing > >a valuable library seems like an ideal sweet spot to me. > > > >-- > >Craig Brookes > >RHMAP > >@maleck13 Github > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Ansible-service-broker mailing list > >Ansible-service-broker at redhat.com > >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ansible-service-broker > > > > > -- > Craig Brookes > RHMAP > @maleck13 Github > _______________________________________________ > Ansible-service-broker mailing list > Ansible-service-broker at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ansible-service-broker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhallise at redhat.com Tue Apr 10 14:34:14 2018 From: rhallise at redhat.com (Ryan Hallisey) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:34:14 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Automation Broker IRC Meeting 2018/4/10 Message-ID: ==================================== #asbroker: Automation Broker 4-10-18 ==================================== Meeting started by rhallisey at 13:31:25 UTC. The full logs are attached. Meeting summary --------------- * Attendance (rhallisey, 13:31:35) * News (rhallisey, 13:33:10) * Bugs/Issue triage (rhallisey, 13:33:56) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+no%3Alabel (rhallisey, 13:35:59) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/882 (rhallisey, 13:36:52) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/878 (rhallisey, 13:41:49) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/877 (rhallisey, 13:43:39) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/876 (rhallisey, 13:46:31) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/853 (rhallisey, 13:54:18) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/847 (rhallisey, 13:56:34) * Features (rhallisey, 14:08:30) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A3.10+label%3Afeature (rhallisey, 14:08:45) * Bundle Lib branch - bundle lib will have a 0.1.X branch for 3.10 release bugs (rhallisey, 14:14:39) * ACTION: shurley: Send out mail about bundle-lib release 0.1.X (rhallisey, 14:18:30) Meeting ended at 14:19:42 UTC. Action Items ------------ * shurley: Send out mail about bundle-lib release 0.1.X Action Items, by person ----------------------- * shurley * shurley: Send out mail about bundle-lib release 0.1.X * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * rhallisey (74) * shurley (49) * brokerbot (21) * mhrivnak (19) * dymurray (18) * dzager (15) * jmontleon (4) * Jmainguy (2) * fabianvf (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- 13:31:25 #startmeeting Automation Broker 4-10-18 13:31:25 Meeting started Tue Apr 10 13:31:25 2018 UTC. The chair is rhallisey. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:31:25 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 13:31:25 The meeting name has been set to 'automation_broker_4-10-18' 13:31:25 rhallisey: startmeeting Meeting Agenda https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mj7bVYJ8NK-TwU_mxeZLprmBBZZ-xOq-Hg4CiD3E6pM/edit?usp=sharing 13:31:35 #topic Attendance 13:31:35 rhallisey: topic 13:31:37 o/ 13:32:04 hey folks 13:32:16 hey rhallisey 13:32:33 I think attendance might be low today 13:32:40 jmrodri: and ernelson in NY for the F2F 13:32:43 ah 13:32:53 Hi 13:33:02 we can make it quick 13:33:10 #topic News 13:33:10 rhallisey: topic 13:33:27 I don't have any news. Did anyone want to bring up anything? 13:33:56 #topic Bugs/Issue triage 13:33:56 rhallisey: topic 13:33:57 Just a shameless plug for the CFME adapter work. There's a demo at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzwIbP9Uxsg 13:34:06 jmontleon, nice 13:34:24 jmontleon: Are you planing on adding that bundle-lib? 13:35:04 doit 13:35:29 I think that's a possibility, but it started as a PoC 13:35:42 cool, looking forward to it jmontleon 13:35:59 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+no%3Alabel 13:35:59 rhallisey: link 13:36:22 here's a list of unlabeled issues 13:36:24 I think the thought was that this may end up being our first 'operator' outside of the broker eventually 13:36:36 Doing it as an adapter was a first step on the path 13:36:42 lets quickly sort through them and assigned labels 13:36:52 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/882 13:36:52 rhallisey: link 13:38:06 jmontleon: +1 perfect 13:38:21 dzager, looks like the 3.7 template might be incorrect 13:38:53 what 3.7 template? 13:39:01 nevermind he's using the simple-broker-template 13:39:10 :) 13:39:34 I'm trying to recreate now to see what's wrong with it. But as of now the images exist...so that isn't the issue 13:39:49 dzager: can you run the simple-broker-template 13:40:09 shurley: working on getting a clean cluster with no broker 13:40:15 oc causing me headaches 13:41:07 ok I think let's mark this as a bug for now and target 3.11 13:41:42 next up 13:41:49 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/878 13:41:49 rhallisey: link 13:42:41 this seems like a feature 13:42:43 I think 3.11 and is a feature/enhancement 13:42:52 and should be more likely moved to bundle-lib 13:43:09 definitely. 13:43:10 shurley, agreed. 13:43:20 shurley, can you close it and copy it over 13:43:39 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/877 13:43:39 rhallisey: link 13:44:56 dymurray: I thought you were working on this one? 13:45:08 this issue is pretty neat 13:45:25 shurley, yup I can take it 13:45:36 Just wasn't planned until next sprint 13:45:47 dymurray, I'm going to tag feature and 3.11 13:45:52 +1 13:45:53 rhallisey, thx 13:46:13 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/878 13:46:13 rhallisey: link 13:46:22 #undo 13:46:22 Removing item from minutes: 13:46:31 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/876 13:46:31 rhallisey: link 13:47:08 This is an interesting one. Eventually a bootstrap means nothing no? because operators will be handling their own bundles? 13:47:43 This seems like we could trivially just update the timeout annotation in our template if CF is using it 13:48:45 +1 to more scale bugs 13:48:56 or stress testing bugs 13:49:22 I'll mark as a bug with 3.11 13:49:43 I think this is probably 3.10 if it is a bug 13:49:55 shurley +1 13:50:10 I don't know that this is really a bug... the timeout annotation is set by an openshift default 13:50:34 It's more just increasing the timeout when we create our route on openshift 13:50:50 should we not fix that in the openshift-ansible, our templates, etc? 13:51:15 a bug in code is no different than a bug in our deployed config(s) imo 13:51:23 I think a no to fixing in openshift-ansible IMO 13:51:39 but our template sure. 13:51:50 +1 the timeout is there for a reason. And this was only hit when using jasons CFME adapter which loads a TON of specs 13:52:01 +1 to changing our template, less sure about openshift-ansible 13:52:31 I think we want to see users with lots and lots of bundles. 13:52:32 dymurray: yeah and I think his adapter does some processing that we don't do in the others 13:52:35 but i could be wrong 13:52:38 So I would not call this an edge case. 13:52:58 mhrivnak, agree. 13:53:01 shurley, Yup, its not just loading specs but doing introspection on each one as a translation layet 13:53:09 I would like to call out that this is only for the bootstrap URL which should eventually not be around 13:53:19 It would be interesting to find out how many service bundles in a registry it would take to cause the same behavior. 13:53:32 I don't think we should spend time on this if it is more than a quick fix IMO 13:53:44 3.10 and bug 13:54:14 we can discussion more in issue 13:54:18 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/853 13:54:18 rhallisey: link 13:55:11 I think this has come up a few times before 13:55:17 not a bug 13:55:32 ya 13:55:44 3.11, tech-debt/feature 13:56:34 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/847 13:56:34 rhallisey: link 13:57:20 dzager, does the broker error out on this? 13:57:46 yeah. @pb82 included a log snippet 13:57:50 does it exit, I should say 13:58:25 dzager, so it logs the error and doesn't exit. 13:58:28 the broker handles it as it does any other provision failure 13:58:32 ok 13:58:56 seems like this we should change the logs in this error case 13:59:06 will target 3.11 and tech-debt 13:59:18 no, I disagree 13:59:51 If we expect an APB to be a bindable 13:59:56 then it should have bind creds 14:00:02 am I missunderstanding? 14:00:13 yes 14:00:17 If it can do async bind, then it should be allowed to only produce credentials during async bind. 14:00:20 and not during provision. 14:00:34 There are cases like that where it makes no sense to produce credentials during provision. 14:00:53 ok 14:01:02 For example the vault demo I put together. 14:01:17 nope on board that makes sense 14:01:32 *yep not nope 14:01:58 So I guess there's a workaround here that a bundle author can create bogus data to store as "provision credentials". 14:02:15 mhrivnak: yes. that's is true. 14:02:23 Which we could use to justify not fixing this until 3.11. 14:02:48 conclusion...add a workaround to the issue and mark it as 3.11? 14:03:03 I am good with fixing this in 3.10. is Async bind a fully suported default for 3.10? 14:03:03 mhrivnak: code release nick name "Amber" 14:03:14 seems reasonable. Wouldn't hurt to fix it sooner of course. :) 14:03:18 be a shame to have a 3.11 release and not name it after the band 14:03:21 I would also rather see this fixed in 3.10. 14:03:56 mhrivnak: I think we *need* to fix when async bind is the default. does anyone know if that is the case for 3.10? 14:04:10 dunno 14:04:44 idk either but would rather see async bind get in sooner rather than later 14:04:44 async bind is definitely fully available. 14:05:01 not sure we can describe it as being a "Default", since it's up to each bundle. 14:05:05 ok then 3.10 label is my vote 14:05:15 3.10, bug 14:05:19 mhrivnak: its not though, its up to the broker 14:05:35 and how you configure it now? 14:05:54 shurley you can definitely prevent async bind with broker config. 14:06:17 But each bundle has to implement async bind logic. 14:06:24 or not. 14:06:27 Right, and then define async: required/optional 14:06:32 ^ it has to implement bind logic 14:06:35 unsupported 14:06:45 it *could* be launched in a non async mode 14:06:49 the bundle should not care 14:06:57 shurley, no, the bundle can care and define it 14:07:03 hwo? 14:07:04 *how? 14:07:08 async: required in apb.yml 14:07:13 ah yes, that's true. It could be called synchronously while the bind API request blocks. 14:07:25 I don't think we care about that dymurray 14:07:30 shurley, then I would say thats a bug 14:07:34 Because its part of the spec 14:07:45 Or am I wrong on that? 14:08:02 lets sync up later on this 14:08:05 +1 14:08:08 +1 14:08:09 sounds good 14:08:19 I might need to look up stuff to make sure I am not saying incorrect things 14:08:30 #topic Features 14:08:30 rhallisey: topic 14:08:36 3.10 and we should create a bugzilla IMO 14:08:40 moving on the features very quickly 14:08:45 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A3.10+label%3Afeature 14:08:45 rhallisey: link 14:09:09 all these will need bugzilla's like shurley said 14:09:24 rhallisey: if they are 3.11 they wont right? 14:09:30 we probably want to punt some of them 14:09:42 then they should be tagged 3.10 no? 14:10:56 I'm confused with what your asking 14:10:58 shurley, 14:11:10 for 3.11, they won't need bzs 14:11:27 but 3.10, is technically in feature freeze 14:12:15 the only thing I wanted to bring up on this feature list is if your an owner and don't think your feature will land very soon 14:12:31 then move to 3.11 14:13:25 we can go through this some more next meeting when ernelson and jmrodri are backl 14:13:37 # topic Open Discussion 14:13:37 rhallisey: topic 14:13:38 rhallisey: re: all these will need bugzilla's like shurley said 14:14:01 you mentioned that, and i was saying we should not create bugzillas for things that are tagged for 3.11 14:14:27 shurley, +1. Gotcha, we're in agreement 14:14:35 +1 ok 14:14:39 #info Bundle Lib branch - bundle lib will have a 0.1.X branch for 3.10 release bugs 14:14:39 rhallisey: info 14:15:22 I saw there was a ML thread on this, but I'm not caught up on this 14:16:06 Um, I don't think that I sent it out on the ML 14:16:23 oh that thread must be something else 14:16:32 I haven't read it, so I'm guessing 14:16:35 basically, I want to branch bundle-lib earlier than the broker so that we can continue to move to 1.0 w/ bundle-lib features 14:17:06 master will be the march to 1.0 and this branch will be for release 0.1.X which would be bug fixes that QA finds 14:17:35 +1 shurley 14:17:51 seems fair 14:18:05 I can take the action item to send out this to the mailing list 14:18:30 #action shurley: Send out mail about bundle-lib release 0.1.X 14:18:30 rhallisey: action 14:18:32 thank shurley 14:18:51 any more open discussion topics? 14:19:35 ok, thanks everyone! 14:19:39 thanks rhallisey 14:19:42 #endmeeting -------------- next part -------------- ==================================== #asbroker: Automation Broker 4-10-18 ==================================== Meeting started by rhallisey at 13:31:25 UTC. The full logs are available at asbroker/2018/asbroker.2018-04-10-13.31.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Attendance (rhallisey, 13:31:35) * News (rhallisey, 13:33:10) * Bugs/Issue triage (rhallisey, 13:33:56) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+no%3Alabel (rhallisey, 13:35:59) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/882 (rhallisey, 13:36:52) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/878 (rhallisey, 13:41:49) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/877 (rhallisey, 13:43:39) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/876 (rhallisey, 13:46:31) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/853 (rhallisey, 13:54:18) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/847 (rhallisey, 13:56:34) * Features (rhallisey, 14:08:30) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A3.10+label%3Afeature (rhallisey, 14:08:45) * Bundle Lib branch - bundle lib will have a 0.1.X branch for 3.10 release bugs (rhallisey, 14:14:39) * ACTION: shurley: Send out mail about bundle-lib release 0.1.X (rhallisey, 14:18:30) Meeting ended at 14:19:42 UTC. Action Items ------------ * shurley: Send out mail about bundle-lib release 0.1.X Action Items, by person ----------------------- * shurley * shurley: Send out mail about bundle-lib release 0.1.X * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * rhallisey (74) * shurley (49) * brokerbot (21) * mhrivnak (19) * dymurray (18) * dzager (15) * jmontleon (4) * Jmainguy (2) * fabianvf (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot From cmoullia at redhat.com Thu Apr 12 06:49:43 2018 From: cmoullia at redhat.com (Charles Moulliard) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:49:43 +0200 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] No nodeselector defined - asb - 3.9 Message-ID: Hi, I have installed openshift 3.9 using openshift ansible playbook and the service catalog but when the asb etcd pod tries to start, then this openshift error appears within the log 0/1 nodes are available: 1 MatchNodeSelector The node exists as we can get it oc get node/192.168.99.50 NAME STATUS ROLES AGE VERSION 192.168.99.50 Ready master 22m v1.9.1+a0ce1bc657 and get info --> see gist link https://gist.github.com/cmoulliard/58fdeda242cc6c24ad6c652caa3f5f0f The problem is due to the fact that the project "openshift-ansible-service-broker " doesn't contain this annotation --> openshift.io/node-selector: "" https://gist.github.com/cmoulliard/6986c1a27febb043795818361c8680c4#file-gistfile1-txt-L5 Is it a bug which has been reported and fixed ? Regards Charles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmoullia at redhat.com Thu Apr 12 07:38:34 2018 From: cmoullia at redhat.com (Charles Moulliard) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:38:34 +0200 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Issue with asb etcd -> etcdmain: error listing data dir: /data Message-ID: Hi, I have an issue with the ASB broker deployed using openshift ansible 3.9 as asb - etcd pod can't start due to this error "etcdmain: error listing data dir: /data". pv and pvc are well mounted. oc get pvc NAME STATUS VOLUME CAPACITY ACCESS MODES STORAGECLASS AGE etcd Bound pv003 5Gi RWO oc get pv/pv003 NAME CAPACITY ACCESS MODES RECLAIM POLICY STATUS CLAIM STORAGECLASS REASON AGE pv003 5Gi RWO Recycle Bound openshift-ansible-service-broker/etcd 1h Is there a workaround ? Regards Charles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmatthew at redhat.com Sun Apr 15 12:32:46 2018 From: jmatthew at redhat.com (John Matthews) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:32:46 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] No nodeselector defined - asb - 3.9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Charles, Sounds like you might have hit the below BZ: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557516 We have a patch merged into openshift-ansible here: https://github.com/openshift/openshift-ansible/pull/7575 This is planned to be included in next 3.9.z update. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Charles Moulliard wrote: > Hi, > > I have installed openshift 3.9 using openshift ansible playbook and the > service catalog but when the asb etcd pod tries to start, then this > openshift error appears within the log > > 0/1 nodes are available: 1 MatchNodeSelector > > The node exists as we can get it > > oc get node/192.168.99.50 > NAME STATUS ROLES AGE VERSION > 192.168.99.50 Ready master 22m v1.9.1+a0ce1bc657 > > and get info --> see gist link > > https://gist.github.com/cmoulliard/58fdeda242cc6c24ad6c652caa3f5f0f > > The problem is due to the fact that the project " > openshift-ansible-service-broker " doesn't contain this annotation --> > openshift.io/node-selector: "" > > https://gist.github.com/cmoulliard/6986c1a27febb043795818361c8680 > c4#file-gistfile1-txt-L5 > > Is it a bug which has been reported and fixed ? > > Regards > > Charles > > _______________________________________________ > Ansible-service-broker mailing list > Ansible-service-broker at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ansible-service-broker > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmoullia at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 06:18:47 2018 From: cmoullia at redhat.com (Charles Moulliard) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:18:47 +0200 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] No nodeselector defined - asb - 3.9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the heads-up, I will have a look and make a test On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, John Matthews wrote: > Charles, > > Sounds like you might have hit the below BZ: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557516 > > We have a patch merged into openshift-ansible here: > https://github.com/openshift/openshift-ansible/pull/7575 > > This is planned to be included in next 3.9.z update. > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Charles Moulliard > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have installed openshift 3.9 using openshift ansible playbook and the >> service catalog but when the asb etcd pod tries to start, then this >> openshift error appears within the log >> >> 0/1 nodes are available: 1 MatchNodeSelector >> >> The node exists as we can get it >> >> oc get node/192.168.99.50 >> NAME STATUS ROLES AGE VERSION >> 192.168.99.50 Ready master 22m v1.9.1+a0ce1bc657 >> >> and get info --> see gist link >> >> https://gist.github.com/cmoulliard/58fdeda242cc6c24ad6c652caa3f5f0f >> >> The problem is due to the fact that the project " >> openshift-ansible-service-broker " doesn't contain this annotation --> >> openshift.io/node-selector: "" >> >> https://gist.github.com/cmoulliard/6986c1a27febb043795818361 >> c8680c4#file-gistfile1-txt-L5 >> >> Is it a bug which has been reported and fixed ? >> >> Regards >> >> Charles >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ansible-service-broker mailing list >> Ansible-service-broker at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ansible-service-broker >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablock at redhat.com Mon Apr 16 19:34:59 2018 From: ablock at redhat.com (Andrew Block) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Blog: Installing apb CLI using Homebrew Message-ID: All, Published a blog on a installing the apb CLI using a Homebrew formula I put together. If anyone has an OSX machine, give it a try http://blog.andyserver.com/2018/04/install-apb-cli-homebrew/ Thanks, Andy Andrew Block Principal Consultant | Red Hat Consulting 101 N. Wacker, Suite 150 Chicago, IL 60606 andrew.block at redhat.com | m. (716) 870-2408 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhallise at redhat.com Tue Apr 17 14:43:13 2018 From: rhallise at redhat.com (Ryan Hallisey) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:43:13 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Automation Broker IRC Meeting Message-ID: Irc logs attached. - Ryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: data Type: application/octet-stream Size: 10763 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dzager at redhat.com Wed Apr 18 20:31:39 2018 From: dzager at redhat.com (David Zager) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 20:31:39 +0000 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Sprint 147 Release Notes Message-ID: When I first generated the release notes for this sprint (via this script ) I thought that it was a little lighter than usual. At the moment the release notes only captures commits going into the master branch of the broker project , not bundle-lib , not any of the APBs. Other Enhancements - Add relist docs (#873) - Changes to subscriber pattern (#828) - Add a table to track release dates (#879) - Fix bug 1564542 (#881) - expose _apb_service_binding_id to bind role (#883) - Issue 882 - Simple broker template use release-1.1 (#885) - add copyright to migration (#888) - Workaround minikube regression for travis (#890) - link broken - typo fixed (#892) - Point to v3.9.0 release of origin (#894) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhallise at redhat.com Tue Apr 24 14:19:23 2018 From: rhallise at redhat.com (Ryan Hallisey) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Automation Broker IRC meeting 4-24-18 Message-ID: ==================================== #asbroker: Automation Broker 4-24-18 ==================================== Meeting started by rhallisey at 13:32:55 UTC. The full logs are attached. Meeting summary --------------- * Attendance (rhallisey, 13:33:01) * News (rhallisey, 13:34:00) * Logging Tip (from jmrodri ) (rhallisey, 13:34:19) * Bugs/Issue triage (rhallisey, 13:37:18) * Make sure image tags match releases (rhallisey, 13:37:31) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/896#issuecomment-382373842 (rhallisey, 13:37:38) * Features (rhallisey, 13:48:03) * Broker-apb (rhallisey, 13:48:11) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/891 (rhallisey, 13:48:16) * Can we merge some PRs? (rhallisey, 13:50:54) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/904 (rhallisey, 13:52:21) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/900 (rhallisey, 13:54:15) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/897 (rhallisey, 13:55:24) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/895 (rhallisey, 13:56:14) * ACTION: dymurray: send out email to ML about changes to deployment with #897 (rhallisey, 13:57:59) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/887 (rhallisey, 13:58:24) * LINK: https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/60 (rhallisey, 13:59:40) * Open Discussion (rhallisey, 14:01:16) * APB tool refactor? (rhallisey, 14:01:23) * ACTION: rhallisey: write up a plan for apb tool v2 (rhallisey, 14:04:19) Meeting ended at 14:08:11 UTC. Action Items ------------ * dymurray: send out email to ML about changes to deployment with #897 * rhallisey: write up a plan for apb tool v2 Action Items, by person ----------------------- * dymurray * dymurray: send out email to ML about changes to deployment with #897 * rhallisey * rhallisey: write up a plan for apb tool v2 * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * rhallisey (71) * jmrodri (45) * brokerbot (25) * dymurray (15) * fabianvf (6) * ernelson (5) * shurley (5) * dzager (4) * mhrivnak (3) * maleck13 (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- 13:32:55 #startmeeting Automation Broker 4-24-18 13:32:55 Meeting started Tue Apr 24 13:32:55 2018 UTC. The chair is rhallisey. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:32:55 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 13:32:55 The meeting name has been set to 'automation_broker_4-24-18' 13:32:55 rhallisey: startmeeting Meeting Agenda https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mj7bVYJ8NK-TwU_mxeZLprmBBZZ-xOq-Hg4CiD3E6pM/edit?usp=sharing 13:33:01 #topic Attendance 13:33:01 rhallisey: topic 13:33:03 o/ 13:33:10 what's up folks 13:33:21 heyo 13:33:38 hi! 13:34:00 #topic News 13:34:00 rhallisey: topic 13:34:01 hello! 13:34:19 #info Logging Tip (from jmrodri ) 13:34:19 rhallisey: info 13:34:39 sorry 13:35:09 yes if you are logging in the broker or bundle-lib, and using the substitutions like %s %v use the *f version of the logging method 13:35:22 for example, Debugf("Hello %s", name) 13:35:58 good tip 13:36:10 go-logging pkg is more forgiving but logrus isn't. We had a few log messages that looked like: "Hello %s how are you?foo" 13:36:21 I fixed them all in the broker and bundle-lib (PRs were posted). 13:36:41 for reviewers be on the lookout for those in upcoming PRs. 13:36:49 that's all. 13:36:59 thanks jmrodri 13:37:18 #topic Bugs/Issue triage 13:37:18 rhallisey: topic 13:37:31 #info Make sure image tags match releases 13:37:31 rhallisey: info 13:37:38 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/896#issuecomment-382373842 13:37:38 rhallisey: link 13:38:01 I saw this yesterday we may have had a conversation about this in the past 13:38:32 but in the openshift-ansible releases, we using the latest tag 13:38:54 I haven't looked in our own repo if we also do that 13:39:41 what are folks thoughts on addressing this? We want to make sure scripts always have the right tag 13:40:36 or maybe this is a one time thing 13:41:37 no thoughts? I guess we'll have to keep an eye out for it 13:41:45 well there is the broker-apb with tagged images for latest, release-1.0, and release-1.1 to provision the correct broker 13:41:54 I think the tags are important. 13:42:02 but there is also changes in each of the branches to use the correct image based on the branch 13:42:13 We've had to make quite a few updates to scripts to match particular tags. Especially in release branches. 13:42:28 that's what I wanted to check dzager. Want to make sure we're following. 13:42:30 I think dzager and others have covered the release branches by now 13:42:32 it may just be this one case 13:42:48 rhallisey: I think the issue you linked too was a recent case 13:42:56 that needed attention. 13:43:11 I like the idea of having the broker-apb as the source for installing the broker with the notable exception of openshift-ansible until we update it to use the broker-apb ;) 13:43:25 rhallisey: for 3.7 there was actually resistance from the openshift-ansible team to locking the origin version down 13:43:36 I proposed it back when they branched 13:44:03 I don't remember why they didn't want to, I don't think I really understood at the time either 13:44:36 fabianvf, I was talking about the broker version in openshift-ansible. Is that what you meant? 13:44:45 I mean the apb version 13:44:46 * 13:44:50 tag* 13:44:52 Yes 13:45:04 Oh, no then 13:45:27 fabianvf, https://github.com/openshift/openshift-ansible/pull/8089 13:45:40 fabianvf, would that be accepted? 13:46:33 fabianvf, we can worry about it after the meeting 13:46:41 let's sync after 13:46:52 rhallisey: I think it's generated enough pain that we can work past pushback if it's still there 13:46:59 did anyone else have other issues to bring up? 13:47:01 fabianvf, ack 13:47:53 fabianvf, we'll have to fix 3.9 too 13:48:03 #topic Features 13:48:03 rhallisey: topic 13:48:11 #info Broker-apb 13:48:11 rhallisey: info 13:48:16 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/891 13:48:16 rhallisey: link 13:48:48 dzager, this looked good to go from my perspective. Is there anything else you know is needed? 13:49:15 I was waiting on shurley since I updated based on his comments 13:49:18 rhallisey: shurley marked it as X 13:49:30 shurley: any issues with the above PR? 13:49:45 dzager: might have to bonk him on the head :) 13:49:49 nope 13:49:51 shurley: +1 13:49:52 hahaha 13:49:56 visack 13:50:45 this goes into the next topic 13:50:54 #topic Can we merge some PRs? 13:50:54 rhallisey: topic 13:51:14 * rhallisey merges #891 13:51:46 do we want to go through open PRs that have approvals an merge them if they're ready? 13:52:00 yeah let's do that 13:52:12 ok I'll start linking them 13:52:13 if they need more review, that's fine 13:52:21 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/904 13:52:21 rhallisey: link 13:52:38 rhallisey: that broker travis for some reason 13:52:51 I'm looking to see what it is. OTher than that, looks like it has at least 2 approvals. 13:52:52 has anyone looked into that? 13:53:05 shurley: I'm looking into it now, didn't realize it was busted :) 13:53:22 error: unable to recognize "/tmp/broker-resource.yaml": no matches for kind "ClusterServiceBroker" in version "servicecatalog.k8s.io/v1beta1" 13:53:25 rhallisey: once I get green on travis, I'll merge. It has 2 acks already. 13:53:26 I briefly looked into travis failures yesterday, I didn't find anything of note aside from it timing out from deprovisions 13:53:30 I mean it's been three weeks since I fixed it last so right on time TBH 13:53:35 I reran a few times and it got green 13:54:01 ernelson: sounds like a timing issue. 13:54:13 next up 13:54:15 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/900 13:54:15 rhallisey: link 13:54:20 yeah dunno what the problem was 13:54:42 ah dzager wanted more protection on that PR 13:54:57 I'll close for now. I don't have time to fix it this week. 13:55:02 jmrodri, ok 13:55:12 closed. I'm the only one using that feature :) 13:55:24 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/897 13:55:24 rhallisey: link 13:55:46 that has plenty of acks 13:55:49 this has beaucoup acks 13:55:52 I'll merge it. 13:56:14 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/895 13:56:14 rhallisey: link 13:56:14 rhallisey: ernelson done 13:56:26 no review yet on this one 13:56:31 I think we should send out an email to explain the change in deployment with this merge 13:56:38 Pretty big PR 13:56:41 dymurray, which one? 13:56:42 rhallisey: added myself to that PR 13:56:49 thanks jmrodri 13:56:52 #8976 13:56:52 dymurray: Error: "8976" is not a valid command. 13:56:56 897** 13:56:57 dymurray: the dashboard one? 13:57:01 Yes 13:57:10 I can send it out 13:57:15 dymurray: thanks 13:57:20 good idea dymurray 13:57:36 rhallisey: can you add an action for dymurray then? 13:57:44 * jmrodri not sure if anyone can add that to the bot :) 13:57:59 #action dymurray: send out email to ML about changes to deployment with #897 13:57:59 rhallisey: action 13:58:14 jmrodri, I need to change that... for some reason you need to identify with it 13:58:24 #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/887 13:58:24 rhallisey: link 13:58:31 this has no reviews yet 13:58:47 pretty simple change 13:59:40 #link https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/60 13:59:40 rhallisey: link 13:59:58 state support inc 14:00:11 I'm going to add myself to that one 14:00:32 any more PRs folks want to review? 14:00:48 I think that was it. My other one has a review pending updates from me 14:01:16 #topic Open Discussion 14:01:16 rhallisey: topic 14:01:23 #info APB tool refactor? 14:01:23 rhallisey: info 14:01:44 I added this. I was wondering if folks have thought about this at all? 14:01:59 if we have thought about a time frame or next steps? 14:02:19 rhallisey, it sounds like plans are to block out time from next sprint for v2 of the tool 14:02:30 Maybe end of this sprint if we have time. Just research/planning 14:02:44 Try to get a prototype off of bundle-lib 14:03:10 I'd suggest an important next step is to scope out what it should and should not do. It sounds like that thinking has evolved since the first version of the tool. 14:03:19 mhrivnak: +1 14:03:24 mhrivnak, agreed 14:03:53 +1 14:03:58 I can take the action item of a proposal. 14:04:18 if we're using bundle-lib, that sounds like a golang app then. Unless there's a way to make bundle-lib a C library that can be pulled into python (that sounds hairy) 14:04:19 #action rhallisey: write up a plan for apb tool v2 14:04:19 rhallisey: action 14:04:43 It is possible to turn golang into a python library, but not likely advisable for this case. 14:05:02 I think that the intention would be moving the CLI tool to golang based on our previous meetings around this 14:05:15 mhrivnak: yeah, I don't think I'd move in that direction :) but the curious side of me took over hehehe 14:05:15 rhallisey, I'd like to help with that proposal if you'll take it 14:05:16 personally I think it is 100x easier to distribute a binary then deal with python 14:05:22 dymurray: +1 14:05:31 shurley: +1 14:05:46 shurley: not in the RHEL world :) 14:05:52 but I'm good with golang 14:06:10 dymurray, sure. What I can do is write a sketch of it and get together offline to mold it 14:06:12 We've had some good discussions in the past as a team around this just need to assess where bundle-lib is at in its current state and what steps we need to take next 14:06:19 rhallisey, +1 perfect thanks 14:06:50 rhallisey: dymurray +1 14:06:58 that's all I had for that topic. Are there any more open discussion items? 14:07:10 I don't have anything 14:07:21 jmrodri: there are options to produce a C style binary that python can consume, so at least we aren't closing doors with go 14:07:36 ernelson: cool 14:08:07 ok folks, thanks for coming 14:08:11 #endmeeting -------------- next part -------------- ==================================== #asbroker: Automation Broker 4-24-18 ==================================== Meeting started by rhallisey at 13:32:55 UTC. The full logs are available at asbroker/2018/asbroker.2018-04-24-13.32.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * Attendance (rhallisey, 13:33:01) * News (rhallisey, 13:34:00) * Logging Tip (from jmrodri ) (rhallisey, 13:34:19) * Bugs/Issue triage (rhallisey, 13:37:18) * Make sure image tags match releases (rhallisey, 13:37:31) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/896#issuecomment-382373842 (rhallisey, 13:37:38) * Features (rhallisey, 13:48:03) * Broker-apb (rhallisey, 13:48:11) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/891 (rhallisey, 13:48:16) * Can we merge some PRs? (rhallisey, 13:50:54) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/904 (rhallisey, 13:52:21) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/900 (rhallisey, 13:54:15) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/897 (rhallisey, 13:55:24) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/895 (rhallisey, 13:56:14) * ACTION: dymurray: send out email to ML about changes to deployment with #897 (rhallisey, 13:57:59) * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/887 (rhallisey, 13:58:24) * LINK: https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/60 (rhallisey, 13:59:40) * Open Discussion (rhallisey, 14:01:16) * APB tool refactor? (rhallisey, 14:01:23) * ACTION: rhallisey: write up a plan for apb tool v2 (rhallisey, 14:04:19) Meeting ended at 14:08:11 UTC. Action Items ------------ * dymurray: send out email to ML about changes to deployment with #897 * rhallisey: write up a plan for apb tool v2 Action Items, by person ----------------------- * dymurray * dymurray: send out email to ML about changes to deployment with #897 * rhallisey * rhallisey: write up a plan for apb tool v2 * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * rhallisey (71) * jmrodri (45) * brokerbot (25) * dymurray (15) * fabianvf (6) * ernelson (5) * shurley (5) * dzager (4) * mhrivnak (3) * maleck13 (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot From dymurray at redhat.com Tue Apr 24 15:19:41 2018 From: dymurray at redhat.com (Dylan Murray) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:19:41 -0400 Subject: [Ansible-service-broker] Dashboard Redirector PR merged to Master Message-ID: Hey all, I want to bring attention this PR: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/897 This was very recently merged into master and includes a noticeable change to the deployment of the broker. You will now see two routes created in the broker namespace along with a second container in the broker's pod. This second container/route deploys what we are calling the "Dashboard Redirector". Due to an oversight in the OSB spec, it was previously impossible to set dashboard_url from an asynchronous provision. This second container is a temporary workaround so that the broker can read a provisioned dashboard URL from an APB and populate it in the web console. >From the end user standpoint nothing should change and everything should function normally. If you are interested in testing out the dashboard_url functionality, I have written up some documentation here: https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/ansible-playbook-bundle/blob/master/docs/developers.md#dashboard-url. You will need to build an APB with the 'canary' image in order to pick up the newer Ansible Module. If you have any questions feel free to let me know! Dylan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: