To Whom It May Concern,
Whilst I was using the application, I came to the realization that some of the links in the footer served no purpose. They went nowhere, and there wasn't even an apparent place that they *should* go.
I entered https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787280 and proceeded to remove the links and the associated entries in en.yml.
I thank you for your kind consideration of this matter.
Our Apache config was invalid for /fonts, though the problem wasn't apparent because the current UI doesn't use them. As we work towards a unified UI, we're using a web font and it wasn't showing in RPM builds due to the invalid reference. This fixes the Alias, tells Apache to not proxy those requests to Rails, and also sets Cache-Control headers on the fonts. I had to add a MIME type for *.woff manually to appease Apache.
This is not associated with a BZ. There is no need to carry this in the existing product release; it's only useful going forward when we add web fonts.
The document talks about two possible approaches to keeping deployment activity; one is to use an archive table, and another is to use a soft_delete flag. I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on both.
Oh, and the document also talks about potentially using dbomatic for periodic history purges. I know there's been some discussion around dbomatic, so if someone had an opinion about that as well. . .
Fedora was accepted as one of the Google Summer of Code (GSoC) projects
and I submitted a proposal to extend Aeolus support on Fedora  a few
weeks back. We've gotten some interest in the project, and I've been
helping various students install and get antiquated w/ the framework so
that they can submit proposals of their own to work on some aspect of
Here is one of those  that Samridh (cc'd, student attending P.E.S.
institute of tech in Bangalore, India ) is working on, and I'm sending
it around for comments and thoughts. Will reply to this thread with
updates and more proposals as time goes on.
If anyone wants to expand upon my proposal with more specific items to
work on and/or co-mentor it with me just shout out and we can make the
Hi, sending proposal for "robust instance launching" scenario. Any
thoughts or improvement ideas are welcomed.
This page describes multi-instances deployment launch process
Jan Provaznik (jprovazn(a)redhat.com)
When launching a deployment, deployment object is created and saved,
Then ‘launch’ method is called on this deployment which creates required
instances in conductor DB and associates them w/ the deployment object.
Then it tries to find suitable ‘match’ (combination of hwp, provider
account, realm) where all instances of this deployment can be launched.
If a match is found, launch params are computed for all instances.
Finally we iterate through all instances and try to launch them. If any
instance launch fails, we set create_failed state on this instance and
continue with next.
All of above steps are not in transaction, IOW if match is not found or
launch params upload fails or instance launch fails, deployment and
instances stay created. There is not retry or fallback plan if an error
occurs (for example the provider of chosen match is not accessible).
1) Successful deployment launch
All instances should be launched in proper order
2) Launch on first provider account fails, succeeds on second provider
Launch two deployment's instances, third instance fails to launch
Launch on the first account should be rolled back -the two launched
instances should be stopped
launch should be done on the second account and should be successful
3) Launch fails on both providers
Launch two deployment's instances, third instance fails to launch
Launch on the first account should be rolled back - the two launched
instances should be stopped
Same for second account
Deployment should be destroyed
Log for this launch should be created in a log
Tasks which were already in Redmine cover whole deployment launch
process, though may be broken into smaller tasks soon:
#3060 - Refactor the launch process to include better error reporting,
retries, switching to alternate providers etc.
#3061 - Ensure that the UI doesn't contain unlaunched instances
#3062 - Ensure that multi-instance deployments always launch fully or
not at all. Conductor should automatically clean-up partial deployments
whole deployment launch process can be split into 3 phases:
1) pre-launch: we prepare deployment and instances objects (in conductor
db), prepare launch params and compute dependencies between instances in
this phase - if anything goes wrong, we just call rollback, nothing is
saved and user stays on launch page
2)launch of non-blocked instances: send dc-api create instance request
for each instance which is not blocked. This step is done on foreground
together with phase 1 when a user presses "launch" button (note: it’s
possible to do this call from dbomatic too, if we decide it’s better).
3)launch instances on state change: instances which have not been
launched in phase 2. because they depend on instanceX are launched when
instanceX is running. This can be done from instance after_update
callback - when instance’s state is changed to ‘running’, get list of
instances which becomes unblocked and launch them. Phase 3 will be
usually executed on background, because instances states are usually
updated by dbomatic (though not always - in some cases instance’s state
is updated directly on dc-api request call).
If an instance launch fails for some reason, we try to deploy somewhere
else: stop all instances which have been already launched, then find
another match (skipping all matches which failed), reset state to NEW
for all instances (or drop and recreate them)
launch progress page (TBD)
Angus suggested that there could be something like “launch progress
page” where details of what’s being done w/ deployment would be showed.
So if the user checks “show me details” checkbox before clicking
“launch” button, he is redirected to this progress page where info which
step is being done is displayed:
"Selecting provider account... account_name"
“Making launch request for instance... x”
This could be probably just displaying of all events associated with
Showing of this page would be optional, alternatively it could be part
of deployment’s show page where a user could redirected after launch.
High-level implementation details
Add 'state' attribute to Deployment model, states can be:
new - deployment is created in Conductor DB, but no instance has been
pending - at least one instance launch has been requested
failed - final state, deployment launch/shutdown failed
rollback_in_progress - an error occurred during launching an instance
and there are already some launched instances which have to be stopped
rollback_failed - stopping of already launched instances failed
rollback_complete - stopping of already launched instances, now the
deployment can be launched somewhere else
running - all instances were successfully are in running state
shutting_down - sthutdown was initiated
stopped - all instances are stopped
Allowed state transitions:
new -> pending
pending -> running|rollback_in_progress|failed
rollback_in_progress -> rollback_complete|rollback_failed
rollback_complete -> pending|failed
running -> shutting_down
shutting_down -> stopped
Deployment state will be used to track deployment's history and decide
what to do on a change - for example if last deployment's instance is
stopped, deployment relaunch is done only if deployment was in
rollback_in_progress state, otherwise the deployment stays stopped.
State will be also used in UI for displaying deployment's state -
currently we use only 3 states: pending, running and failed and these
are computed "per request" by checking state of all instances in deployment.
in transaction do
create deployment’s instances
compute instances dependencies (covered by task 3054)
find match where all instances can be launched (covered by task 3064)
deployment and instances are not created in conductor’s db
user stays on deployment launch page
proper error with reason why launch was not successful is displayed
for each deployment’s instance which is not blocked do
send dc api launch request
initiate deployment rollback
instance’s after update callback:
if instance is in running state then invoke instances_launch
elsif instance is in failed state then invoke deployment_rollback
if all instances are stopped/failed invoke deployment_relaunch
else send stop request to any instances in pending or running state
find new match where all instances can be launched (skipping matches
which we tried before)
if match is found, invoke instances_launch
elsif match is not found, retry for all matches -> use first match
which failed before
if match is not found, create log about failed launch in some history
log (covered scenario 3037) and destroy this deployment
Instance launch timeout
On deployment launch when an instance is in pending state for X minutes,
the launch is terminated and deployment rollback is initiated.
This timeout should be configurable, default timeout could be 15 minutes?
The above is short/mid-term solution how to improve instance launching,
it doesn't add any new dependency/tool. Long-term solution is to
integrate Heat (https://github.com/heat-api), which is expected to do
all things we need (take care of deps between instances, launch
instances in proper order, rollback of failed launch, monitoring...).
We don't care about dependencies between instances when stopping a
Links and other references related to the feature.
Mails, IRC logs, documentation for libraries used, links to other parts
of project documentation, etc.
I am now working on preparing API for Provider and ProviderAccount resources
so I want to ask some questions regarding controllers for API.
At this moment there are some controllers in API namespace and so there is duplicated functionality between UI and API parts.
In the future we will be adding features to API and CLI tool too.
I think that we need to decide wheter keep UI and API controllers separated or merge them together.
I think that best will be to merge them together.
Controller should be as skinny as possible with minimum logic (parameters sanitizing, model call, render results - view or whatever).
Controller should respond to html, js, json, xml, etc...
All the logic now present in controllers should be moved to models or some other classes which will work with models (delegators, decorators, name it...)
Please, write your thoughts and/or experience with this kind of problem.