Support a no-op roll out

[parhamdoustdar]

Right now, we watch for modifications to the Application object, and use those moments to create a new release.

However, the problem with this approach is that there is no way of forcing a rollout. This would be useful in cases where:

• The user wants to restart all pods to refresh a value retrieved at runtime
• The user wants us to re-fetch the chart with the same version

I'm not aware of us having come up with any solutions for this in the past, although there were a lot of discussions. The easiest option we came up with, however, which is not perfect, is people changing a label on their Application object so that technically, it would result in an update event and cause a new release.

Another idea we discussed was to have an annotation, like shipper.booking.com/noop, that people would set to true to cause a rollout to happen.

The problem with these approaches is that they are not intuitive and seem to be more of a hack to get around the issue than to solve it properly.

[alvrod]

From a usability point of view, shipper normally operates by having us merge a spec value into it with patch release; then having to do something similar to do a restart sounds within what should be expected.

Perhaps there could be a spec.targetVersion, same as we have a targetStep.
At first, a release is in version 0. If I want to do a rolling restart, I can
$ kubectl patch release $release -p '{"spec":{"targetVersion":1}}' --type="merge"
then shipper can perform the necessary steps to gradually create new pods to comply with this.
If I want to do it again I can
$ kubectl patch release $release -p '{"spec":{"targetVersion":2}}' --type="merge"
etc.

Analogously there can be a achievedVersion in the status which Shipper can use to track progress of the new version.

[juliogreff]

kubectl 1.15 will come with kubectl rollout restart, so we'll have some prior art to base our work on: kubernetes/kubernetes#13488 (comment)

[ksurent]

Another idea we discussed was to have an annotation, like shipper.booking.com/noop, that people would set to true to cause a rollout to happen.
The problem with these approaches is that they are not intuitive and seem to be more of a hack to get around the issue than to solve it properly.

FWIW, I don't think this is a hack. It's very much in the nature of Kubernetes. Set an annotation and bump its value every time. And just to make sure we make it even more accessible, this could be documented in FAQ. Certainly doesn't feel like it's something that'd justify changing API.

[parhamdoustdar]

In support of what @ksurent said, kubectl rollout restart does something similar, setting the annotation kubectl.kubernetes.io/restartedAt to something like "2019-07-10T10:26:20+02:00".

Here is the relevant issue

[osdrv]

This proposal is an very interesting topic from Shipper's contract perspective. Say, application A has 2 releases: R1 (deactivated) and R2 (active). In essence, Shipper guarantees to have transitioned application A state from R1 to R2 gracefully and safely. A no-op restart (say, R2*) breaks this contract in 2 places: it doesn't progress gracefully and it doesn't guarantee the state (R2*) would be stable (if we take into account the motivation for this change: re-fetching the chart and re-fetching some env value).

An alternative to this approach might be to let new distinct releases to be created from the same application object. In this case what effectively will happen is: all new values would be re-fetched and re-evaluated, the same version of chart would be re-fetched (with a tiny but: we cache charts aggressively. I assume, it's a side topic, but there are some issues with the approach when 2 distinct snapshots of chart might exist under the same version).

[parhamdoustdar]

Yes, exactly. The reason the annotation was suggested as a solution is that we create a new Release resource every time the Application resource is modified. So in essence, adding a new annotation, or changing its value, should do what you said: create a new release. I agree that we need to explore the side-effects of this when it comes to external assets like charts and images. Maybe if we all agree with the general idea, someone could start working on an RFC that answers those questions.

…

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:14 PM Oleg Sidorov ***@***.***> wrote: This proposal is an very interesting topic from Shipper's contract perspective. Say, application A has 2 releases: R1 (deactivated) and R2 (active). In essence, Shipper guarantees to have transitioned application A state from R1 to R2 gracefully and safely. A no-op restart (say, R2*) breaks this contract in 2 places: it doesn't progress gracefully and it doesn't guarantee the state (R2*) would be stable (if we take into account the motivation for this change: re-fetching the chart and re-fetching some env value). An alternative to this approach might be to let new distinct releases to be created from the same application object. In this case what effectively will happen is: all new values would be re-fetched and re-evaluated, the same version of chart would be re-fetched (with a tiny but: we cache charts aggressively. I assume, it's a side topic, but there are some issues with the approach when 2 distinct snapshots of chart might exist under the same version). — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#89?email_source=notifications&email_token=AACWCG3DRIHG4RPSCMMTAXDP7REY7A5CNFSM4HEI4LGKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODZ5INDY#issuecomment-511346319>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACWCG76VU7XWMVWD6FMT6LP7REY7ANCNFSM4HEI4LGA> .