Proposal: Support . in param / result names

teps/0080-support-domainscoped-parameterresult-names.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+---
+status: proposed
+title: Support domain-scoped parameter/result names
+creation-date: '2021-08-19'
+last-updated: '2021-08-19'
+authors:
+- '@mattmoor'
+---
+
+# TEP-0080: Support domain-scoped parameter/result names
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Summary](#summary)
+- [Motivation](#motivation)
+  - [Goals](#goals)
+  - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+  - [Use Cases (optional)](#use-cases-optional)
+- [Requirements](#requirements)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [Notes/Caveats (optional)](#notescaveats-optional)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+  - [User Experience (optional)](#user-experience-optional)
+  - [Performance (optional)](#performance-optional)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+- [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+- [Design Evaluation](#design-evaluation)
+- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
+- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
+- [Infrastructure Needed (optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+- [Upgrade &amp; Migration Strategy (optional)](#upgrade--migration-strategy-optional)
+- [Implementation Pull request(s)](#implementation-pull-request-s)
+- [References (optional)](#references-optional)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Summary
+
+Allow Task and Pipeline authors to expose parameters and results that allow
+`.` characters.
+
+> _This TEP was originally raised [here](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/3590)
+as an issue for discussion._
+
+## Motivation
+
+The motivation of this work is to *enabl* us to establish conventions around the
+definition of parameters and results that may have a deeper meaning for
+higher-level systems without a high-degree of accidental naming collisions.
+
+The pursuit of `.` is specifically to follow the precedents set by many other systems
+(including Kubernetes labels, CloudEvent types, Java import paths, ContainerD plugins,
+and many more) of using a Domain-scoped naming convention to "claim" a segment of
+names for the owner's exclusive use.  This is of course conventional, but in practice
+is generally good enough.
+
+With this work, higher-level systems could start to define Task/Pipeline "interfaces"
+or leverage partial signature matching to enable special semantics around certain
+signatures, without (significant) concerns around matching something accidentally.
+
+> _It is notable that with @bobcatfish [TEP for stronger
+typing](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/pull/479) that these conventions should
+also establish the types associated with those parameter names, and might form a good
+case for SchemaRefs._
+
+### Goals
+
+Enable conventions to be established around the use of domain-scoped names as a way
+for the domain owner to "own" the definition of what those parameters and results are
+for and how they will be used.
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+It is not a goal of this TEP to establish these conventions, or begin to define any
+"well known" parameters or results owned by Tekton (e.g. `dev.tekton.foo.bar`).
+
+
+### Use Cases (optional)
+
+See the [original issue](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/3590) for some
+of these.
+
+There are potentially a lot more things like this, but I'd rather leaves those for
+a conversation around the types of conventions we should standardize, and not rat hole
+here (just about enabling that next convo).
+
+## Requirements
+
+Parameters and Result name resolution must be unamiguous, especially in the presence
+of proposals like [TEP for stronger typing](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/pull/479),
+which allows folks to access fields of complex parameters.
+
+## Proposal
+
+Two parts to the proposal:
+
+1. Allow folks to define parameters and results with `.` in the name:
+```yaml
+  params:
+    - name: dev.mattmoor.foo
+```
+
+2. Allow folks to reference parameters and results with quotes around the name
+(required if it contains a `.`):
+```yaml
+  steps:
+    - image: $(params."dev.mattmoor.foo")
+```
+
+### Notes/Caveats (optional)
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+The main risk is likely the ambiguity of references without the quoting requirement,
+especially in a world where parameter and results can themselves be object and parts
+of those are accessed via `.`
+
+### User Experience (optional)
+
+### Performance (optional)
+
+N/A
+
+## Design Details
+
+This mostly feels like a plumbing exercise, but I'd be happy to expand if there are
+specifics worth fleshing out in advance of PRs.
+
+## Test Plan
+
+Testing should be added of each of the pieces above: quoting (alone), and quoting
+of parameters and results with `.` in both Task and Pipeline contexts.
+
+## Design Evaluation
+
+Conformant Tekton implementations should support this.
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+The need to quote parameters names may not come intuitively to Task authors, but
+if this becomes a well established precedent that's adopted in places like the
+catalog there will be ample examples demonstrating how to use this properly.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+We could establish conventions around non-domain names, such as `s/./-/`, but this
+feels like a less natural convention given the strong precedent for domains.
+
+## Infrastructure Needed (optional)
+
+N/A
+
+## Upgrade & Migration Strategy (optional)
+
+I can't think of any problems, since this isn't supported today.
+
+## Implementation Pull request(s)
+
+Not there yet!
+
+## References (optional)
+
+[Original issue](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/3590)

teps/README.md

@@ -220,3 +220,4 @@ This is the complete list of Tekton teps:
 |[TEP-0070](0070-tekton-catalog-task-platform-support.md) | Platform support in Tekton catalog | proposed | 2021-06-02 |
 |[TEP-0071](0071-custom-task-sdk.md) | Custom Task SDK | proposed | 2021-06-15 |
 |[TEP-0072](0072-results-json-serialized-records.md) | Results: JSON Serialized Records | implementable | 2021-07-26 |
+|[TEP-0080](0080-support-domainscoped-parameterresult-names.md) | Support domain-scoped parameter/result names | proposed | 2021-08-19 |