Kubernetes SIG Service Catalog, 2 Jul 2018

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Service Catalog 2018-07-02

Description

F2F prep for next week 2018-07-09

re-raise issues from 2018-06-18 meeting
positional arguments in new svcat command

PR Review

A

ah Morgan, don't don't feel bad buddy shark happens so.

B

Well, yeah you're right, we just did just gotta start welcome to July 2nd 2018 service, catalog meeting already in progress, and we have covered the fact that people need to add stuff to the agenda TOC for us to talk about and if you're watching this video I don't know if you're going to be attending. But if you have an issue that you would like us to look at while we're all together, we would appreciate you putting something into the document. So.

C

Morgan, you might want to stop tapping, concentrate kind of do really loud and clear.

A

You only need to host the meeting. You don't have to be the percussion section to do. We have imperative delete on on the agenda. Yet. Yes,.

C

We do we have that on actually, anyway, Morgan seems to be up. I took the two links from your June 18th discussions. I put them into the agenda like for the face-to-face, so people can easily find them and review them before the meeting.

B

Superduper that sounds excellent um and yeah, so the quick version of that is there is a document to add comments to. If you want to just add comments, and it is a github repo and you can file issues or PRS or whatever and do github things to it.

B

We already discuss how we address the security contact. We had people to the document or the file that has security contacts in it. I was discussing how we've added the blunderbuss prowl plug-in, enabled on our repo such that it will choose people out of the owners file, and the to do here was to go. Add yourself to files that you feel you can comment on. We have done a first-level round of that, and I feel that that has been very effective in choosing more appropriate people there are still two do is for some of it.

B

Remove some of the more people in in the top level one or move around and add more lower level. Higher level depends on which way you look at the tree owners files such that by default we get people who are actually responding and get people to respond. We're often and start using the prowl process.

B

Until yeah, that's that's the to do, for everybody is go, go! Try to hide yourself to a notice. Well, make sense.

B

Okey-Dokey I guess it's me again, I just wanted to you know the end of the week is the I believe the CFP end date for the Shanghai one, the Seattle one is sort of additionally added to it. I think it has its own end date for CFPs, but you can just submit to both I believe with the Shanghai submission process, and so I didn't have any specific things here. I just wanted to ask if there was any last-minute ideas that somebody wanted to talk about or if we just wanted to wing it as usual.

A

I sorry Morgan do you mean, as relates to CFP some submissions or like sig sessions, both.

B

Either I mainly meant I figure. There will be a six session and we don't have to discuss that at this moment, but I was I. Suppose it was mainly due to does anybody want to work together on one and are they already working together on one and are they already submitting stuff and probably shouldn't let it go until now, but I figured? We may want to discuss that the other way.

A

Okay, I'm not sure what the deadline is forgetting room for sig sessions, but those don't need to go through the normal CFP process. As far as I know, right.

A

Well, yeah I think that we should plan on having one if people are going to be there and by having one I mean having a sig deep-dive or something like that. One of the sig sessions that.

C

Was kind of assuming at some point the organizers would reach out to us and say you know, sig owners who wants to do something but I haven't seen. One of those notes come out yet.

A

I haven't either for Seattle I think it's probably a ways away and I.

A

I'm not sure when they would do it for shanghaied.

C

I'm actually gonna be surprised. They do it for Shanghai, but maybe I'll be surprised mostly.

C

Look who's going to Shanghai by the way we're gonna try to go to Shanghai I'm.

A

Gonna try I doubt I will be able to yeah.

C

That's the problem, I think they're gonna ruin into its travel budgets and stuff yeah.

C

So I guess to Morgan's question: is there anybody who'd like to collaborate on a session for Shanghai, since that's due this Friday I believe.

C

I'm not hearing anything.

C

All right, Jonathan, I, think you're up done.

D

Okay, so Carol and I have been adding and working on headings more stuff to sv cat and we've had sort of a disagreement on mandatory flags versus arguments, and this is something there isn't really a right or wrong answer. It's for the amount of preference thing, and we just wanted to bring it up to the group. I.

D

Don't think Karen's here today, just to see if people have an opinion or if they don't care so specifically, currently in the way SP cat works is we're trying to keep to a minimum of mandatory arguments and additional information are supplied by a flags that must be thrown for instance, and provision you always have to provide it. The name of the instance you're creating.

D

However, you also always have to provide it at least a class in the plan which are specified with additional Flags like the first example there, and then on top of that there are some other flags like secrets, etc that can be thrown. The alternative is having all of the information that must be provided, always as simple arguments and then have additional optional information provided by Flags.

C

See anybody care about this I personally I always find it a little odd to use flags for required arguments. I prefer I, guess your second example there, like I, said it's a personal preference I. Just to me things. You need an option or flags like that are meant to be for optional things. If you can easily require, then it doesn't require. I require a flag in my opinion, but I know that's not to say the way all of kubernetes works. Unfortunately,.

A

So I guess the only the thing that I would think of in favor of arguments, for some things that are required would be like I'm. Looking at this example, and since we have so many different ways of identifying things like for provision, it seems like it might be hard to figure out.

A

Sorry I got distracted. It might be hard to figure out exactly what the actual piece of information you're passing in the case of like services and plans might be.

D

C

And also the plan is optional. If there's only one planned well, that's.

A

C

That's why they need to I.

A

Agree so Jonathan in him. Like your example in the agenda, the second one service cap provision fubar, like is ABC the kubernetes name, is that the human readable name which coordinates there are human, readable names? Okay.

A

So if you want to pass like an external ID instead do you what would that look like in the second example I.

D

Don't believe SV cat currently supports external IDs at all. Okay,.

D

Yeah I think we're. We only deal with human readable names for the moment that.

A

Makes sense? Okay, so maybe that's not a major issue like it it doesn't. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, I'm thinking about it too, like want to use SV cat and then you're like I want to use it with external ID kind of opposite directions to pull in yeah. It's that's what comes to mind for me.

B

I'm, sorry, are we doing the speaker queue thing or we just shout and stuff out, Alan.

D

Oh, it looks like a mix of both and also I. Have there aren't timestamps I'm, not really certain. Did you hand for this or something.

B

I guess maybe mostly Doug's opinion on an optional stuff, but with the caveat of Paul's, we have multiple days to refer to things and so I don't know if we need an escape hatch on being specific or if that just means everything needs to be a flag.

B

Or if you take, if it's not there and it's an optional positional arguments, then we have to check for flags I, don't know what's difficult to do in the CLI. The last point I want to make is whether or not this is intended sort of for scripting. Even though we have a you know, client go this client that clients support in other languages.

B

You know: do we expect people to try to script around this, and are we being consistent enough for that to be possible? And you know the moment we change something. Are we gonna break a bunch of people scripts versus you know with that support, so last thought there I.

D

B

Haven't really discussed.

D

Where they're, not where they intend us, we can't be for scripting purposes. In fact, we seemed in my experience to have been hearing on the opposite direction that providing it mostly for something, that's easy for a person to physically use that matches with my previous.

B

Discussions yes, duck.

C

Yeah actually I would I would agree with both. I I I would definitely want to be for scripting, because I like its scripting as just bash filing what a user would type, and so, when I look at something like this I think.

C

Yes, how do you make it as easy as possible for an end user, and that to me is something closer to your second option in the first one, because I want to make the user get their job done as quickly as possible, with as little typing as possible, and that's why I tend to favor, though the no flag thing for required parameters, but.

D

It's all subjective.

D

Well, the argument for the other option for the first option is that it's it's easier to understand what exactly each of these things I'm typing it as, whereas, if someone were to come and look and say, SP can't provisions foo bar ABC, once you see they're like what is I, don't know what any of those things are is that the name is of the class names plan, yeah.

C

I think I think that argument really only holds when you have like six different parameters right and I. Don't think that's really what we're talking about here right because you cuz with that argument, you could sit there and say well. Why doesn't foo bar have a dash in front right.

C

You know I said: where do you draw the line because we don't require for every single parameter? Just some you.

D

C

That's why I like.

B

You know I love.

C

Consistency and so the the consistent rule of required parameters don't require a optional parameters, do require our works. For me,.

D

B

And that kind of falls apart in the multiplication Ulrich's, oh.

C

Say that again in.

B

The manner of you can refer to something three different ways: name or this or UID or external idea. Yeah.

C

I thought we got rid of that, though I thought we were just doing to even read on these okay.

D

Yeah I, don't think any commands in svk currently support multiple ways to refer to the same thing: okay, there you go, you can pass in UUID, there's a UUID flag, I thought for which commands.

D

Arisen bind I, do not support that I. Think get. Does you.

C

Can get things by UUID when you do that? Is it behind a flag or keys just put a human, real name or the UID? No figures that one is I. Think if I remember right, it was a boolean that interpreted what you gave it as the name as a UUID. Instead interesting.

C

That would still fall into that same pattern that was better or worse, where.

D

C

D

Have a required name.

C

And then the boolean flag tells you how to interpret that required field. So.

D

I'll have to investigate that and I will endeavor, regardless of what we decide upon to make behavior consistent.

B

Superduper, okay,.

D

C

Morgan you're up okay,.

B

So refuse in general, multiple points here: I feel like as a project we're somewhat bogged down by people, not doing reviews and I, don't know what the answer is. If it's figure out the owners files or you know, remove people from them or whatnot, but I don't get the feeling that people like start their day by opening up Service Catalog polls and reviewing them and so I, don't know again.

B

I, don't know what the solution here is, but I feel like we're sort of slowing down as a project and people are not doing what they need to be doing so. Here's a list of stuff to go review, I think.

C

Your your action right now is probably the very is the best first step is to.

B

Remind about, but it shouldn't be required to raise this once a week. Oh, look! Here's all the things that we're not doing now.

C

Hi great here right, but before we take something drastic I like the idea of at least let's remind people yeah.

A

I think that that I know that a number of different vendors that work on this project have been working towards their own goals like in terms of their own internal, deliver all deliverables around their broker implementations. So that's probably a factor. That's been present over the last couple months. I agree: it should not be something that we have to do, but it's it can be an easy way to prod people. I see, Morgan, you've raised your hand, so I'll give.

B

It to you, okay, well, my opinion here is I, really don't care what various vendors are doing with service catalog that is causing them to not be responsive.

B

If we're going like the project should not hinge on people be, like you know, several people being away for a month or a week or whatever, like things, shouldn't come to a standstill.

B

If we are, you know believing in the project, so I I'm not sympathetic to that particular reasoning. There.

C

All right, my hands up, um I, don't think we have a whole lot of control over that. Even though I understand your centimorgan and I, don't necessarily agree I, just I, don't think I can do anything aside to fix that quite that easily. So what I'd like to suggest is that, since this is at the end of the agenda- and we have 30 minutes left I'd like to ask that Morgan, since you took the time to pull out these guys, I think what is there six or five in there?

C

Can you identify which ones, you think might be relatively small and we can force people to right now review them since we have 30 extra minutes. I know it's not great to review things on a call like this, but I'd like the idea of a forcing function, at least for the easy ones like the first ones, relatively.

B

Straightforward sure I most of them should be relatively small, which is why I'm surprised they're taking well.

B

This is mainly fixing tests. The core of the thing is this: this is the actual code. Change can make a punch, it's a slightly bigger. Thank you.

B

This is the core of the code change and in the commit I say: I, don't know my my good get go import thing wanted to rearrange everything so I just committed it to.

C

Just be clear, the net of this one is the cluster IDs being sent now for the org ID, and the space ID is the namespace good. Is.

B

That correct yeah, the namespace good, was always that we weren't testing that in the test we weren't sending either of them we weren't sending up and so I had to fix I fixed everything, basically I filed an issue and then I fixed the issue.

B

What I would like to this goes into another thing: if we're going to continue to use this library, we need to get people to respond on it or we need to get your mission to it from the people on this project. I.

A

Morgan that your your pull on that one must have slipped by me, I'm sorry about that I. So, on that subject, I really need to rehome those things. I am happy to donate them to kubernetes SIG's, but they I would say effectively like at least the open serviceworker client. At this point, like especially I'd, be happy to rehome it. We.

C

Just don't meet, we just don't pull it into our repo here. It seems like a natural fit for it.

A

There are other people that are using it outside of this project. I.

B

Don't mind keeping it separate I just we need to either add more of us to that repository or again get more reviews on it. That's the only.

A

Yeah well I tell you what I can. Let me go and look at that now, if you're ever trying to make a pull to a repo that is under my user ID just feel free to shoot me an email. I am sorry that that slipped by me and I'll review it now. Okay, sure so.

C

Can we get another LG TM on that first one right now you only need one more.

B

You feel free to take the time to review it, so we move on.

B

This was to fix a flake I started reviewing this and it looks like everything is d. Flaked I need to take another pass at it myself, I'll do that either today or tomorrow, but Carolyn is out, so she can't take another pass at it and this week. So just please look.

B

This is all stuff caught by go vet that I I'm, not sure how it's getting past the internal vet, but it is and I just fixed it. So it's that stuff. So.

C

What hold on a sec um you scroll down a little flying 679 on that one, that one right there: okay.

B

This was when, when this pretty message thing was implemented, we dropped it argument. Oh yeah.

C

Sorry, for some reason, I thought you switched status thing because everybody was just an insert. Okay. Thank.

B

You, oh yeah, it's just insert the condition type. This is this is how it's done in the instance code and so I I went back and I looked through the history and we dropped a bunch of arguments. This was just one extra argument that was dropped and that was saying. Oh look, you've got three formatting arguments, but you've only got two args, so I put it back and I looked at the update service instance function and it had this in it and you know yep, that's what I hate should be.

B

This is more insidious in that this is a pointer, and so it doesn't really do much help to print out a pointer, but also, if you try to print out a pointer and it's nil, it blows things up so I'm willing to change this. If somebody has a better idea, but this was the easiest I like.

C

Your change I'm just a price that it would blow up I supposed to just print out the word. No.

B

It will, if we leave it as a pointer but I'm, trying to dereference it to actually print the thing. Oh I see we actually.

C

B

A print like 0x, like.

C

It no you're right, I thought I'd missed that got.

B

It so I can't do much about it. I thought I'd changed more than that, but I guess not. So that's that and twice.

C

Any questions on that any reason people can't tell G team that when I know.

C

If you want to set the recording, you can't I, don't really care I.

B

Don't see eat it either way.

B

Youtube spaces YouTube space.

B

Do we actually want to stop it I, don't.