On 29 Jul 2015 at 14:41:48, Sheena Gregson (sgreg...@mirantis.com) wrote: Hey Sergii –
I don’t know if I agree with the statement that it’s bad practice to mix core and plugin functionality. From a user standpoint, if I’m trying to deploy something like Contrail, I would like to see all of my Networking configuration options together (including the Contrail plugin) so that I can make an intelligent selection in the context of networking. Agreed When plugins are not related to a specific space, I personally as a user would expect to see a generic “Plugins” grouping in the Settings tab to reduce sub-group proliferation (I probably don’t need a sub-group for every plugin). I know that in conversations with Patrick (cc’d for input) he has mentioned wanting to have the plugins define the space they should be displayed in, as well, including spaces where core component settings are made. Absolutely. I think the plugins paradigme should be considered more of an implementation artefact than a logical grouping of functionality. I think that what we need is a mechanism by which plugins are free to make that logical grouping of settings in a way that is meaningful and consistent from an end-user standpoint. I agree that name validation could probably be improved – the names right now correspond either to the plugin name or to the name of the section that existed in the previous version. This initial iteration breaks down subgroups but does not change any of the section naming conventions or do anything else to make the Settings space more manageable. Sheena From: Sergii Golovatiuk [mailto:sgolovat...@mirantis.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:24 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Feedback Sheena, I still have concerns regarding #3. I am sending attachment how it's implemented. Firstly, it's bad practice to mix core and plugin functionality. Also we do not validate names. When there are several plugins it's very hard to find all of them I am giving a sketch how it should be IMO -- Best regards, Sergii Golovatiuk, Skype #golserge IRC #holser On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Sheena Gregson <sgreg...@mirantis.com> wrote: Hey Sergii – This is excellent feedback, thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts. #1 I agree that the documentation lag is challenging – I’m not sure how to best address this. We could potentially prioritize updates to the Plugin SDK for soon-to-be-released features ahead of the standard release notes and user guide updates to ensure that plugin developers have access to this information earlier? A number of the docs team members will be getting together in late August to discuss how to improve documentation, I will add this as a topic if we don’t feel there is good resolution on the mailing list. +Alexander/Evgeny to cc for their input #3 Settings tab is getting a facelift in 7.0 and there are now subgroups in the tab which should make it significantly easier for a user to find plugin settings. Each plugin will create a new sub-group in the Settings tab, like Access (and others) in the screenshot below. I don’t have any insight on the GitHub issues, so I will wait for others to weigh in on your concerns there. Sheena From: Sergii Golovatiuk [mailto:sgolovat...@mirantis.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:51 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugins] Feedback Hi, I have started digging into plugins recently. There are many positive things though I would like to point to some problem areas 1. Documentation a. It doesn't include the features of 7.0. There are many outstanding features, though I needed to ping the developers to ask how these features work. It means that it's almost impossible to develop plugins for upcoming releases. The external developer needs to wait for documentation so it creates a lag between release and plugin release. b. in [1] the statement about 'For Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS' should be extended to 14.04. Also we don't need to add PATCH version as 12.04.2 is equivalent to 12.04 c. There is no documentation how to install fpb from github master branch. It's very useful for developers who want to use latest version. We should add something 2. Github repository [2] is messed up a. We are doing the same mistake putting all things into one basket. There should be 2 repositories. One for examples and one for fpb. What's the goal of keeping fpb in directory and examples on top? This breaks a couple of things b. I cannot build fpm with simple pip install git+https:// Instead I am forced to do git clone https:// cd fuel-plugins pip install . c. There is no tags as I can see only stable/6.0 d. There are no tests to improve code quality pep8 flask8, code coverage e. Repository doesn't follow community standards. 3. Setting tab When plugin is installed, it's very hard to find in. In setting tab it's somewhere between A and Z How is user supposed to find it? There should be a separator between Core features and plugins. User must easily find, configure, enable/disable them. P.S. I am asking everyone to add own concerns so we'll be able to make a plan how to address them. Thank you in advance. [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Plugins#Installation [2] https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-plugins -- Best regards, Sergii Golovatiuk, Skype #golserge IRC #holser __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
