006950e3ca
While old launchpad links will still work, we have process and contributor documentation that needed to be updated. Change-Id: I0890e09ba75a6ac8644ce2bea9292aab5b55cfb5
308 lines
13 KiB
ReStructuredText
308 lines
13 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. _code-contribution-guide:
|
||
|
||
=======================
|
||
Code Contribution Guide
|
||
=======================
|
||
|
||
This document provides some necessary points for developers to consider when
|
||
writing and reviewing Ironic code. The checklist will help developers get
|
||
things right.
|
||
|
||
Getting Started
|
||
===============
|
||
|
||
If you're completely new to OpenStack and want to contribute to the ironic
|
||
project, please start by familiarizing yourself with the `Infra Team's Developer
|
||
Guide <https://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html>`_. This will
|
||
help you get your accounts set up in Launchpad and Gerrit, familiarize you with
|
||
the workflow for the OpenStack continuous integration and testing systems, and
|
||
help you with your first commit.
|
||
|
||
LaunchPad
|
||
---------
|
||
|
||
Most of the tools used for OpenStack require a launchpad.net ID for
|
||
authentication.
|
||
|
||
.. seealso::
|
||
|
||
* https://launchpad.net
|
||
|
||
Storyboard
|
||
----------
|
||
|
||
The ironic project moved from Launchpad to `StoryBoard
|
||
<https://storyboard.openstack.org/>`_ for work and task tracking.
|
||
This provides an aggregate view called a "Project Group"
|
||
and individual "Projects". A good starting place is the
|
||
`project group <https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project_group/75>`_
|
||
representing the whole of the ironic community, as opposed to
|
||
the `ironic project <https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/943>`_
|
||
storyboard which represents ironic as a repository.
|
||
|
||
Related Projects
|
||
----------------
|
||
|
||
There are several projects that are tightly integrated with ironic and which are
|
||
developed by the same community.
|
||
|
||
.. seealso::
|
||
|
||
* https://docs.openstack.org/bifrost/latest/
|
||
* https://docs.openstack.org/ironic-inspector/latest/
|
||
* https://docs.openstack.org/ironic-lib/latest/
|
||
* https://docs.openstack.org/ironic-python-agent/latest/
|
||
* https://docs.openstack.org/python-ironicclient/latest/
|
||
* https://docs.openstack.org/python-ironic-inspector-client/latest/
|
||
|
||
Project Hosting Details
|
||
-----------------------
|
||
|
||
Bug tracker
|
||
https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/943
|
||
|
||
Mailing list (prefix Subject line with ``[ironic]``)
|
||
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
|
||
|
||
Wiki
|
||
https://wiki.openstack.org/Ironic
|
||
|
||
Code Hosting
|
||
https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/ironic
|
||
|
||
Code Review
|
||
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/ironic,n,z
|
||
|
||
Adding New Features
|
||
===================
|
||
|
||
Ironic tracks new features using RFEs (Requests for Feature Enhancements)
|
||
instead of blueprints. These are stories with 'rfe' tag, and they should
|
||
be submitted before a spec or code is proposed.
|
||
|
||
When a member of the `ironic-core team <https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/165,members>`_
|
||
decides that the proposal is worth implementing, a spec (if needed) and code
|
||
should be submitted, referencing the RFE task or story ID number. Contributors
|
||
are welcome to submit a spec and/or code before the RFE is approved, however
|
||
those patches will not land until the RFE is approved.
|
||
|
||
Feature Submission Process
|
||
--------------------------
|
||
|
||
#. Submit a bug report on the `ironic StoryBoard
|
||
<https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/943>`_.
|
||
There are two fields that must be filled: 'Title' and
|
||
'Description'. 'Tasks' can be added and are associated with a project.
|
||
If you can’t describe it in a sentence or two, it may mean that you are
|
||
either trying to capture more than one RFE at once, or that you are having
|
||
a hard time defining what you are trying to solve at all. This may also be
|
||
a sign that your feature may require a specification document.
|
||
|
||
#. Describe the proposed change in the 'Description' field. The
|
||
description should provide enough details for a knowledgeable developer to
|
||
understand what is the existing problem in the current platform that needs
|
||
to be addressed, or what is the enhancement that would make the platform
|
||
more capable, both from a functional and a non-functional standpoint.
|
||
|
||
#. Submit the story, add an 'rfe' tag to it and assign yourself or whoever is
|
||
going to work on this feature.
|
||
|
||
#. As soon as a member of the team acknowledges the story,
|
||
we will move the story to the 'Review' state. As time goes on, Discussion
|
||
about the RFE, and whether to approve it will occur.
|
||
|
||
#. Contributors will evaluate the RFE and may advise the submitter to file a
|
||
spec in the ironic-specs repository to elaborate on the feature request.
|
||
Typically this is when an RFE requires extra scrutiny, more design
|
||
discussion, etc. For the spec submission process, please see the
|
||
`Ironic Specs Process`_. A specific task should be created to track the
|
||
creation of a specification.
|
||
|
||
#. If a spec is not required, once the discussion has happened and there is
|
||
positive consensus among the ironic-core team on the RFE, the RFE is
|
||
'approved', and its tag will move from 'rfe' to 'rfe-approved'. This means
|
||
that the feature is approved and the related code may be merged.
|
||
|
||
#. If a spec is required, the spec must be submitted (with a new task as part
|
||
of the story referenced as 'Task' in the commit message), reviewed, and merged
|
||
before the RFE will be 'approved' (and the tag changed to 'rfe-approved').
|
||
|
||
#. The tasks then goes through the usual process -- first to 'Review' when
|
||
the spec/code is being worked on, then 'Merged' when it is
|
||
implemented.
|
||
|
||
#. If the RFE is rejected, the ironic-core team will move the story to
|
||
"Invalid" status.
|
||
|
||
Change Tracking
|
||
---------------
|
||
|
||
When working on an RFE, please be sure to tag your commits properly:
|
||
"Story: #xxxx" or "Task: #xxxx". It is also helpful to set a consistent
|
||
review topic, such as "story/xxxx" for all patches related to the RFE.
|
||
|
||
If the RFE spans across several projects (e.g. ironic and python-ironicclient),
|
||
but the main work is going to happen within ironic, please use the same story
|
||
for all the code you're submitting, there is no need to create a separate RFE
|
||
in every project.
|
||
|
||
.. note:: **RFEs may only be approved by members of the ironic-core team**.
|
||
|
||
Managing Change Sets
|
||
--------------------
|
||
|
||
If you would like some help, or if you (or some members of your team)
|
||
are unable to continue working on the feature, updating and
|
||
maintaining the changes, please let the rest of the ironic community
|
||
know. You could leave a comment in one or more of the
|
||
changes/patches, bring it up in IRC, the weekly meeting,
|
||
or on the OpenStack development email list.
|
||
Communicating this will make other contributors aware of the
|
||
situation and allow for others to step forward and volunteer to
|
||
continue with the work.
|
||
|
||
In the event that a contributor leaves the community, do not expect
|
||
the contributor's changes to be continued unless someone volunteers
|
||
to do so.
|
||
|
||
Timeline Expectations
|
||
=====================
|
||
|
||
As with any large project, it does take time for features and changes to be
|
||
merged in any of the project repositories. This is largely due to limited
|
||
review bandwidth coupled with varying reviewer priorities and focuses.
|
||
|
||
When establishing an understanding of complexity, the following things should
|
||
be kept in mind.
|
||
|
||
* Generally, small and minor changes can gain consensus and merge fairly
|
||
quickly. These sorts of changes would be: bug fixes, minor documentation
|
||
updates, follow-up changes.
|
||
|
||
* Medium changes generally consist of driver feature parity changes,
|
||
where one driver is working to match functionality of another driver.
|
||
|
||
* These changes generally only require an RFE for the purposes of
|
||
tracking and correlating the change.
|
||
* Documentation updates are expected to be submitted with or immediately
|
||
following the initial change set.
|
||
|
||
* Larger or controversial changes generally take much longer to merge.
|
||
This is often due to the necessity of reviewers to gain additional
|
||
context and for change sets to be iterated upon to reach a state
|
||
where there is consensus. These sorts of changes include: database,
|
||
object, internal interface additions, RPC, rest API changes.
|
||
|
||
* These changes will very often require specifications to reach
|
||
consensus, unless there are pre-existing patterns or code already
|
||
present.
|
||
* These changes may require many reviews and iterations, and can
|
||
also expect to be impacted by merge conflicts as other code or
|
||
features are merged.
|
||
* These changes must typically be split into a series of changes.
|
||
Reviewers typically shy away from larger single change sets due
|
||
to increased difficulty in reviewing.
|
||
* Do not expect any API or user-visible data model changes to merge
|
||
after the API client freeze. Some substrate changes may merge if
|
||
not user visible.
|
||
|
||
* You should expect complex features, such as cross-project features
|
||
or integration, to take longer than a single development cycle to land.
|
||
|
||
* Building consensus is vital.
|
||
* Often these changes are controversial or have multiple
|
||
considerations that need to be worked through in the specification
|
||
process, which may cause the design to change. As such, it may
|
||
take months to reach consensus over design.
|
||
* These features are best broken into larger chunks and tackled
|
||
in an incremental fashion.
|
||
|
||
Live Upgrade Related Concerns
|
||
=============================
|
||
|
||
See :doc:`/contributor/rolling-upgrades`.
|
||
|
||
Driver Internal Info
|
||
====================
|
||
The ``driver_internal_info`` node field was introduced in the Kilo release. It allows
|
||
driver developers to store internal information that can not be modified by end users.
|
||
Here is the list of existing common and agent driver attributes:
|
||
|
||
* Common attributes:
|
||
|
||
* ``is_whole_disk_image``: A Boolean value to indicate whether the user image contains ramdisk/kernel.
|
||
* ``clean_steps``: An ordered list of clean steps that will be performed on the node.
|
||
* ``instance``: A list of dictionaries containing the disk layout values.
|
||
* ``root_uuid_or_disk_id``: A String value of the bare metal node's root partition uuid or disk id.
|
||
* ``persistent_boot_device``: A String value of device from ``ironic.common.boot_devices``.
|
||
* ``is_next_boot_persistent``: A Boolean value to indicate whether the next boot device is
|
||
``persistent_boot_device``.
|
||
|
||
* Agent driver attributes:
|
||
|
||
* ``agent_url``: A String value of IPA API URL so that Ironic can talk to IPA
|
||
ramdisk.
|
||
* ``hardware_manager_version``: A String value of the version of the hardware
|
||
manager in IPA ramdisk.
|
||
* ``target_raid_config``: A Dictionary containing the target RAID
|
||
configuration. This is a copy of the same name attribute in Node object.
|
||
But this one is never actually saved into DB and is only read by IPA ramdisk.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
These are only some fields in use. Other vendor drivers might expose more ``driver_internal_info``
|
||
properties, please check their development documentation and/or module docstring for details.
|
||
It is important for developers to make sure these properties follow the precedent of prefixing their
|
||
variable names with a specific interface name (e.g., ilo_bar, drac_xyz), so as to minimize or avoid
|
||
any conflicts between interfaces.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Ironic Specs Process
|
||
====================
|
||
|
||
Specifications must follow the template which can be found at
|
||
`specs/template.rst <https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/ironic-specs/tree/
|
||
specs/template.rst>`_, which is quite self-documenting. Specifications are
|
||
proposed by adding them to the `specs/approved` directory, adding a soft link
|
||
to it from the `specs/not-implemented` directory, and posting it for
|
||
review to Gerrit. For more information, please see the `README <https://git.
|
||
openstack.org/cgit/openstack/ironic-specs/tree/README.rst>`_.
|
||
|
||
The same `Gerrit process
|
||
<https://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html>`_ as with source code,
|
||
using the repository `ironic-specs <https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/
|
||
ironic-specs/>`_, is used to add new specifications.
|
||
|
||
All approved specifications are available at:
|
||
https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs. If a specification has
|
||
been approved but not completed within one or more releases since the
|
||
approval, it may be re-reviewed to make sure it still makes sense as written.
|
||
|
||
Ironic specifications are part of the `RFE (Requests for Feature Enhancements)
|
||
process <#adding-new-features>`_.
|
||
You are welcome to submit patches associated with an RFE, but they will have
|
||
a -2 ("do not merge") until the specification has been approved. This is to
|
||
ensure that the patches don't get accidentally merged beforehand. You will
|
||
still be able to get reviewer feedback and push new patch sets, even with a -2.
|
||
The `list of core reviewers <https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/352,
|
||
members>`_ for the specifications is small but mighty. (This is not
|
||
necessarily the same list of core reviewers for code patches.)
|
||
|
||
Changes to existing specs
|
||
-------------------------
|
||
|
||
For approved but not-completed specs:
|
||
|
||
- cosmetic cleanup, fixing errors, and changing the definition of a feature
|
||
can be done to the spec.
|
||
|
||
For approved and completed specs:
|
||
|
||
- changing a previously approved and completed spec should only be done
|
||
for cosmetic cleanup or fixing errors.
|
||
- changing the definition of the feature should be done in a new spec.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Please see the `Ironic specs process wiki page <https://wiki.openstack.org/
|
||
wiki/Ironic/Specs_Process>`_ for further reference.
|