[Ansible-service-broker] Automation Broker IRC Meeting June 12, 2018

Ryan Hallisey rhallise at redhat.com
Tue Jun 12 14:19:05 UTC 2018 

====================================
#asbroker: Automation Broker 6-12-18
====================================


Meeting started by rhallisey at 13:31:44 UTC. The full logs are attached.



Meeting summary
---------------
* Attendance  (rhallisey, 13:32:01)

* News  (rhallisey, 13:33:21)

* Review Previous Actions  (rhallisey, 13:36:32)
  * ernelson to investigate issue 974  (rhallisey, 13:37:05)
  * ACTION: community: review
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979
    (rhallisey, 13:41:12)

* Bugs/Issue triage  (rhallisey, 13:42:29)

* Features  (rhallisey, 13:43:29)
  * LINK:

https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979#issuecomment-396511919
    (rhallisey, 13:43:38)
  * Allow role checks on plans / apbs  (rhallisey, 13:43:57)
  * ACTION: maleck13: schedule a call with interested parties to discuss
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/982
    (rhallisey, 13:57:26)
  * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
    (rhallisey, 13:58:39)
  * ACTION: community: review
    https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/70 and cut a
    release to unblock
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
    (rhallisey, 14:00:32)

* Open Discussion  (rhallisey, 14:01:50)
  * Better way to mock out getting a new executor - shurley  (rhallisey,
    14:02:34)
  * ACTION: jmrodri & ernelson:
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/983
    (rhallisey, 14:07:04)

Meeting ended at 14:12:39 UTC.




Action Items
------------
* community: review
  https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979
* maleck13: schedule a call with interested parties to discuss
  https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/982
* community: review
  https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/70 and cut a
  release to unblock
  https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
* jmrodri & ernelson:
  https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/983




Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* maleck13
  * maleck13: schedule a call with interested parties to discuss
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/982
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * community: review
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979
  * community: review
    https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/70 and cut a
    release to unblock
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
  * jmrodri & ernelson:
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/983




People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* rhallisey (46)
* shurley (32)
* maleck13 (32)
* brokerbot (21)
* philipgough (7)
* mhrivnak (7)
* dzager (6)
* jmontleon (4)
* fabianvf (3)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/ansible-service-broker/attachments/20180612/e624b3c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
====================================
#asbroker: Automation Broker 6-12-18
====================================


Meeting started by rhallisey at 13:31:44 UTC. The full logs are
available at asbroker/2018/asbroker.2018-06-12-13.31.log.html .



Meeting summary
---------------
* Attendance  (rhallisey, 13:32:01)

* News  (rhallisey, 13:33:21)

* Review Previous Actions  (rhallisey, 13:36:32)
  * ernelson to investigate issue 974  (rhallisey, 13:37:05)
  * ACTION: community: review
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979
    (rhallisey, 13:41:12)

* Bugs/Issue triage  (rhallisey, 13:42:29)

* Features  (rhallisey, 13:43:29)
  * LINK:
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979#issuecomment-396511919
    (rhallisey, 13:43:38)
  * Allow role checks on plans / apbs  (rhallisey, 13:43:57)
  * ACTION: maleck13: schedule a call with interested parties to discuss
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/982
    (rhallisey, 13:57:26)
  * LINK: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
    (rhallisey, 13:58:39)
  * ACTION: community: review
    https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/70 and cut a
    release to unblock
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
    (rhallisey, 14:00:32)

* Open Discussion  (rhallisey, 14:01:50)
  * Better way to mock out getting a new executor - shurley  (rhallisey,
    14:02:34)
  * ACTION: jmrodri & ernelson:
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/983
    (rhallisey, 14:07:04)

Meeting ended at 14:12:39 UTC.




Action Items
------------
* community: review
  https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979
* maleck13: schedule a call with interested parties to discuss
  https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/982
* community: review
  https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/70 and cut a
  release to unblock
  https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
* jmrodri & ernelson:
  https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/983




Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* maleck13
  * maleck13: schedule a call with interested parties to discuss
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/982
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * community: review
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979
  * community: review
    https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/70 and cut a
    release to unblock
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
  * jmrodri & ernelson:
    https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/983




People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* rhallisey (46)
* shurley (32)
* maleck13 (32)
* brokerbot (21)
* philipgough (7)
* mhrivnak (7)
* dzager (6)
* jmontleon (4)
* fabianvf (3)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
-------------- next part --------------
13:31:44 <rhallisey> #startmeeting Automation Broker 6-12-18
13:31:44 <brokerbot> Meeting started Tue Jun 12 13:31:44 2018 UTC.  The chair is rhallisey. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:31:44 <brokerbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
13:31:44 <brokerbot> The meeting name has been set to 'automation_broker_6-12-18'
13:31:44 <brokerbot> rhallisey: startmeeting Meeting Agenda https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mj7bVYJ8NK-TwU_mxeZLprmBBZZ-xOq-Hg4CiD3E6pM/edit?usp=sharing
13:31:54 <jmontleon> dzager, /usr/bin/entrypoint.sh: line 16: jq: command not found
13:32:01 <rhallisey> #topic Attendance
13:32:01 <brokerbot> rhallisey: topic
13:32:05 <rhallisey> o/
13:32:07 <dzager> jmontleon: :)
13:32:19 <jmontleon> need to install jq on your image?
13:32:22 <mhrivnak> o/
13:32:26 <dzager> o/
13:32:31 <jmontleon> \o
13:32:35 <dzager> jmontleon: yup
13:32:36 <philipgough> Hi
13:33:01 <jmontleon> ~~~~\o/~~~~^~~~~~
13:33:21 <rhallisey> #topic News
13:33:21 <brokerbot> rhallisey: topic
13:33:35 <rhallisey> nothing listed.  I don't have anything personally
13:33:38 <maleck13> hey
13:33:40 <fabianvf> Hi
13:33:45 <rhallisey> hey maleck13 fabianvf
13:33:53 <rhallisey> any news from folks?
13:34:12 <mhrivnak> quick bit
13:34:31 <mhrivnak> We had a good crowd at the SouthEast LinuxFest, maybe 60 or so in the room for a broker talk.
13:34:51 <mhrivnak> Good questions, and the stickers were very popular. ;)
13:34:55 <fabianvf> Wow
13:35:01 <rhallisey> nice
13:35:11 <maleck13> stickers? theres stickers :)
13:35:44 <rhallisey> maleck13, we can ship you some
13:35:55 <maleck13> rhallisey: that would be awesome
13:36:32 <rhallisey> #topic Review Previous Actions
13:36:32 <brokerbot> rhallisey: topic
13:36:51 <rhallisey> jmrodri, isn't here right now.  Will skip his
13:37:05 <rhallisey> #info ernelson to investigate issue 974
13:37:05 <brokerbot> rhallisey: info
13:37:57 <rhallisey> ernelson, should I carry this item for next week?
13:38:57 <rhallisey> actually, instead of going through one by one
13:39:16 <rhallisey> does anyone have a particular item they want to go over in current action items?
13:39:29 <maleck13> I do
13:39:50 <maleck13> The spike is around managed shared services. currently working on a doc that outlines the work, but added a comment to share the approach to provisioning that I am leaning towards
13:39:53 <maleck13> to get feedback
13:40:38 <maleck13> would appreciate any thoughts on that issue if ppl have to time to take a look
13:41:09 <mhrivnak> Will keep an eye out for that.
13:41:12 <rhallisey> #action community: review https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979
13:41:12 <brokerbot> rhallisey: action
13:41:24 <rhallisey> thanks for that maleck13
13:41:46 <shurley> maleck13: it is on my todo stack today :)
13:41:53 <maleck13> mhrivnak: shurley thanks
13:41:58 <rhallisey> any more action items to review?
13:42:29 <rhallisey> #topic Bugs/Issue triage
13:42:29 <brokerbot> rhallisey: topic
13:42:44 <rhallisey> no items listed here.  Did folks have anything to add?
13:43:25 <rhallisey> ok. Moving to features
13:43:29 <rhallisey> #topic Features
13:43:29 <brokerbot> rhallisey: topic
13:43:38 <rhallisey> #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/979#issuecomment-396511919
13:43:38 <brokerbot> rhallisey: link
13:43:39 <shurley> I don’nt have anyting
13:43:57 <rhallisey> #info Allow role checks on plans / apbs
13:43:57 <brokerbot> rhallisey: info
13:44:31 <maleck13> So this is mine and came up while fleshing out the managed shared services stuff
13:45:10 <maleck13> TLDR allow a role to be specified at the plan level, that specifies which role a user needs to provision a particular plan
13:45:36 <maleck13> and have the broker check that role if it is present
13:45:52 <maleck13> it seems like something the broker should do rather than the catalog?
13:46:20 <shurley> this was alos on my to read to list
13:46:25 <shurley> give me a second to read
13:47:36 <rhallisey> my initial thought is that this would go in the catalog
13:48:00 <shurley> I see the problem. So we asking for the broker to check, not that the requesting user has access to the sandbox role, but to the role that the APB has asked for
13:48:02 <maleck13> rhallisey: but does that not mean the brokers needs to know about k8s roles when sending back service classes
13:48:14 <maleck13> shurley: yes
13:48:38 <shurley> so in this scenario we would need to use the plan’s role if presetn
13:48:41 <maleck13> rhallisey: I don't think brokers would all know about this
13:48:43 <shurley> *present
13:48:47 <maleck13> yes
13:48:53 <shurley> as the role for the service account grants
13:49:20 <maleck13> shurley: or perhaps just check the user doing the provision has the role
13:49:31 <maleck13> shurley: then allow the provision to go ahead as normal
13:49:52 <shurley> Ok, something else that is on the backlog that is tagentally related is https://trello.com/c/fiOSsq1Q/123-5-revisit-replacing-subjectrulesreview-with-subject-access-rule-to-gain-ability-to-check-permissions-in-pure-k8s-as-well-as-open#comment-5ac7a023ac6bd35b2cc6a412
13:50:44 <shurley> so checking if a user has a role is not really that good.
13:51:01 <shurley> because they could be apart of a group that has the role permissions
13:51:48 <maleck13> ok
13:51:50 <shurley> so instead we can use the aggregated roles which has been on the back log, and If we do this plus the change then this is something that could be possible in both k8s and openshift
13:52:20 * maleck13 goes to look up aggregated roles
13:52:40 <shurley> I am not opposed to doing both but I think we need to do them together OR the trello card first IMO
13:53:14 <shurley> dymurray mhrivnak dzager any thoughs on apb plan defining the role?
13:54:00 <maleck13> It has potential future use in the OpenShift ui if we can hide and show plans based on the users roles also
13:54:02 <maleck13> side point
13:54:36 <mhrivnak> I think I need to read up on this one some more.
13:54:54 <maleck13> As said in the issue it is part of the spike so not something required right now, but would be good to know if on a track that makes sense in the automation broker
13:55:08 <rhallisey> I'm not able to visualize this with aggregated roles.  Also need to read more into this
13:55:15 <dzager> the apb plan defining the role? I think I need more here
13:55:16 <maleck13> If easier can set up a call to talk through the work we are doing
13:55:27 <dzager> the big movement in the apb layout is to more of the ansible-galaxy format (ie. 1 role)
13:56:01 <fabianvf> dzager: think role might be overloaded in this conversation
13:56:10 <maleck13> fabianvf: yes :)
13:56:13 <shurley> maleck13: +1 might be a good time to discuss the above work if anyone has questions?
13:56:15 <dzager> fabianvf: that helps
13:56:19 <rhallisey> 'role' = k8s role
13:56:51 <mhrivnak> call++
13:56:59 <maleck13> ok so that is an action for me
13:57:26 <rhallisey> #action maleck13: schedule a call with interested parties to discuss https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/issues/982
13:57:26 <brokerbot> rhallisey: action
13:57:43 <rhallisey> any more features to bring up folks?
13:58:16 <rhallisey> maleck13, if you can throw the invite in the ML and folks can respond as they please would work
13:58:27 <philipgough> Just wanted to bring up this pr for conditional params again https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
13:58:38 <philipgough> thanks for the visual ack shurley
13:58:39 <rhallisey> #link https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
13:58:39 <brokerbot> rhallisey: link
13:58:55 <philipgough> Its not building because it has a dependency on a change in bundle-lib
13:59:04 <philipgough> Was wondering on the best way to handle this
13:59:26 <shurley> we need to merge bundle lib and then need to do a release
13:59:46 <shurley> then you should bump the release in your PR to the new bundle lib release
13:59:51 <shurley> has been our current process
13:59:57 <philipgough> shurley: Sure thanks, so from my point of view there is nothing I need to do here as of now?
14:00:07 <philipgough> Right cool, just wanted to clarify
14:00:32 <rhallisey> #action community: review https://github.com/automationbroker/bundle-lib/pull/70 and cut a release to unblock https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/928
14:00:32 <brokerbot> rhallisey: action
14:00:49 <rhallisey> thanks philipgough
14:01:09 <rhallisey> any more features to bring up?
14:01:50 <rhallisey> #topic Open Discussion
14:01:50 <brokerbot> rhallisey: topic
14:02:08 <rhallisey> #info Better way to mock out getting a new executor
14:02:08 <brokerbot> rhallisey: info
14:02:27 <rhallisey> #undo
14:02:27 <brokerbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by rhallisey at 14:02:08 : Better way to mock out getting a new executor
14:02:34 <rhallisey> #info Better way to mock out getting a new executor - shurley
14:02:34 <brokerbot> rhallisey: info
14:02:55 <rhallisey> is there an issue tracking is?
14:02:56 <shurley> so, I have been working on adding unit tests to the places we have been ignoring
14:03:36 <shurley> and I notice that the one of things that we just are not able to mock/encapsulate is the call to bundle.NewExecutor()
14:03:53 <maleck13> +1
14:04:10 <shurley> which makes unit testing the jobs.go in broker/ pkg hard
14:04:28 <maleck13> hit a similar issue with the jobs in the broker. Solved with an interface that has NewProvisionJob etc
14:04:38 <shurley> so my PR go it up to like 70ish percent and we can just say meh that is good enough
14:04:50 <shurley> or we can refactor to make it better
14:05:16 <shurley> but I have not seen jmrodri or ernelson who I assume will have strong opinions on this one so I don’t want to go to far down this road
14:06:03 <shurley> Also, I think we need to make the work engine an interface
14:06:12 <shurley> any objections to that?
14:06:24 <rhallisey> shurley, what's the PR number?
14:06:40 <shurley> 983
14:07:04 <rhallisey> #action jmrodri & ernelson: https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/983
14:07:04 <brokerbot> rhallisey: action
14:07:09 <maleck13> I imagine it would be similar to some of what was done here https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/pull/909
14:07:44 <shurley> maleck13: Oh yeah, just like that
14:07:48 <shurley> LOL
14:08:13 <maleck13> shurley: great minds :)
14:09:13 <rhallisey> any other open discussion topics
14:09:16 <shurley> looks like this might need a rebase but this makes broker.go completly unit testable I think
14:09:35 <rhallisey> +1
14:09:37 <maleck13> shurley: it at least goes a long way
14:09:50 <maleck13> shurley: rebasing currently :)
14:10:20 <shurley> I think this plus my pr I could uniti test broker.Provision
14:12:01 <shurley> that’s all I had rhallisey
14:12:13 <rhallisey> thanks shurley & maleck13
14:12:29 <rhallisey> I think that's all folks.  Thanks for coming today!
14:12:39 <rhallisey> #endmeeting

More information about the Ansible-service-broker mailing list