-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 222
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
8421f59
commit 72e2088
Showing
2 changed files
with
222 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| status: proposed | ||
| title: Custom Task SDK | ||
| creation-date: '2021-06-15' | ||
| last-updated: '2021-06-15' | ||
| authors: | ||
| - '@ScrapCodes' | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| # TEP-0071: Custom Task SDK | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- 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 & Migration Strategy (optional)](#upgrade--migration-strategy-optional) | ||
| - [Implementation Pull request(s)](#implementation-pull-request-s) | ||
| - [References (optional)](#references-optional) | ||
| <!-- /toc --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Summary | ||
|
|
||
| A Custom Task SDK will make the work of custom task author easier and will offer | ||
| standard way to implement custom task controllers. While adhering to current | ||
| separation of concern between a custom task controller's role and tektoncd owned | ||
| controller's role, it should make custom tasks easier to manage and reason by | ||
| tektoncd. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Currently, a custom task author has limited ways to know what is a standard way | ||
| of developing the custom task. Their best bet is to explore one of the existing | ||
| implementation in `experimental/` repo. | ||
| 2. However, an experimental custom task may not be up to date with the latest `tektoncd` | ||
| code base version. There is no one goto place, where a Task author can find upto | ||
| date example. | ||
| 3. Presently, `tektoncd` does not manage the life cycle of a custom task at all. | ||
| A SDK can open up newer possibilities in this regard. | ||
| 4. SDK available as a project template, can perform some of common tasks, | ||
| generate boiler-plate code and provide helper functions/scripts. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Goals | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Provide a Github template with a simple controller and CRD implementation, | ||
| which a user can fork and develop his own custom task controller. | ||
| 2. Provide helper functions/packages for common tasks and documentation | ||
| with best practices. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Non-Goals | ||
|
|
||
| - providing SDKs in languages other than Go | ||
| - providing a generic CRD controller lib | ||
|
|
||
| ### Use Cases (optional) | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Describe the concrete improvement specific groups of users will see if the | ||
| Motivations in this doc result in a fix or feature. | ||
| Consider both the user's role (are they a Task author? Catalog Task user? | ||
| Cluster Admin? etc...) and experience (what workflows or actions are enhanced | ||
| if this problem is solved?). | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Describe constraints on the solution that must be met. Examples might include | ||
| performance characteristics that must be met, specific edge cases that must | ||
| be handled, or user scenarios that will be affected and must be accomodated. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Proposal | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is. | ||
| This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what | ||
| you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or | ||
| implementation. The "Design Details" section below is for the real | ||
| nitty-gritty. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### Notes/Caveats (optional) | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| What are the caveats to the proposal? | ||
| What are some important details that didn't come across above. | ||
| Go in to as much detail as necessary here. | ||
| This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### Risks and Mitigations | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| What are the risks of this proposal and how do we mitigate. Think broadly. | ||
| For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger | ||
| kubernetes ecosystem. | ||
| How will security be reviewed and by whom? | ||
| How will UX be reviewed and by whom? | ||
| Consider including folks that also work outside the WGs or subproject. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### User Experience (optional) | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Consideration about the user experience. Depending on the area of change, | ||
| users may be task and pipeline editors, they may trigger task and pipeline | ||
| runs or they may be responsible for monitoring the execution of runs, | ||
| via CLI, dashboard or a monitoring system. | ||
| Consider including folks that also work on CLI and dashboard. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### Performance (optional) | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Consideration about performance. | ||
| What impact does this change have on the start-up time and execution time | ||
| of task and pipeline runs? What impact does it have on the resource footprint | ||
| of Tekton controllers as well as task and pipeline runs? | ||
| Consider which use cases are impacted by this change and what are their | ||
| performance requirements. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Design Details | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your | ||
| change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always | ||
| required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your | ||
| proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them. | ||
| If it's helpful to include workflow diagrams or any other related images, | ||
| add them under "/teps/images/". It's upto the TEP author to choose the name | ||
| of the file, but general guidance is to include at least TEP number in the | ||
| file name, for example, "/teps/images/NNNN-workflow.jpg". | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Test Plan | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| **Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.* | ||
| Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement: | ||
| - Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests? | ||
| - How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components? | ||
| No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything | ||
| that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly | ||
| challenging to test should be called out. | ||
| All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage | ||
| expectations). | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Design Evaluation | ||
| <!-- | ||
| How does this proposal affect the reusability, simplicity, flexibility | ||
| and conformance of Tekton, as described in [design principles](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/master/design-principles.md) | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Drawbacks | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Why should this TEP _not_ be implemented? | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Alternatives | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| What other approaches did you consider and why did you rule them out? These do | ||
| not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough | ||
| information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Infrastructure Needed (optional) | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a | ||
| new subproject, repos requested, github details. Listing these here allows a | ||
| SIG to get the process for these resources started right away. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Upgrade & Migration Strategy (optional) | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Use this section to detail wether this feature needs an upgrade or | ||
| migration strategy. This is especially useful when we modify a | ||
| behavior or add a feature that may replace and deprecate a current one. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Implementation Pull request(s) | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Once the TEP is ready to be marked as implemented, list down all the Github | ||
| Pull-request(s) merged. | ||
| Note: This section is exclusively for merged pull requests, for this TEP. | ||
| It will be a quick reference for those looking for implementation of this TEP. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## References (optional) | ||
|
|
||
| 1. [Governance approval](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/issues/459) |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters