Temporary deployment scenarios (tear-down and multiple use)

The results of some automated deployment is temporary, and requires a tear down or clean up stage once it is no longer required. The behaviour of this usage differs depending on whether it is one client or multiple clients who are using the deployed resource.

Contents

• Temporary deployment scenarios (tear-down and multiple use)
  • Scenario
  • Standardisation options
    • 1) One option would be to link from the autoResult to an autoPlan that, when executed, tears down the deployed resource.
    • 2) Another option would be to add an additional state.
    • 3) An extension of option (2) would be to provide more means for providers to define the semantics of their custom states.
• Extended scenario: multiple-client use of deployed resource
  • Effect on standardisation options
    • Effect on option 1)
    • Effect on options 2) and 3)
  • Mechanism for registering interest
  • Extended option 2)
• Other considerations to discuss

Scenario

1. The Client (such as an automation orchestrator, or a more basic client exposing automation controls) requests for a temporary automated deployment (i.e. it requires teardown).
2. The Provider accepts the requests and starts the deployment
3. When the deployment has completed the Client becomes aware of that, and triggers the intended usage of that deployment (e.g. automated tests)
4. When the usage of that deployment has finished, the Client notifies the Provider that the deployed resource is no longer required
5. The Provider tears down the deployed resource, at its convenience, to free up resources.

Example: One of the Amazon EC2 charging models is to charge per hour of uptime, so the longer the VM is deployed the more costs rack up. This is a strong reason for wanting to tear down at the end of use, compared to the traditional deploy of a build or similar which can sit on the machine until the next deploy occurs.

Standardisation options

1) One option would be to link from the autoResult to an autoPlan that, when executed, tears down the deployed resource.

Pros:

• v2 clients could consumer this, as long as they let the user choose any of the selection dialogs available for autoPlans.
• Could be used for other automation plans available as a result of this deployment, not just tear-down

Cons:

• Doubles the number of resources needed (or more)

2) Another option would be to add an additional state.

This state could either be:

• For the “ready”/”deployed” state, i.e. the “deployed and not torn down” state (so “completed” means “torn down”), or
• For the “torn down” state (so “completed” means “ready/deployed and not torn down”)

The client would then set the desiredState property to whatever the final state was (“completed” for the first option, or “torn down” for the second option) when it has finished with the deployed resource.

Pros for the new ready/deployed state would be that “completed” is still the final state. Pros for the new “torn down” state would be that where v2 clients use “completed” as the trigger for the next automation execution (e.g. executing tests on the deployed resource) the behaviour remains the same.

Pros for using an additional state over a separate plan: it better models the state of the deployed resource - its state is available from a single autoResult, not two separate ones.

3) An extension of option (2) would be to provide more means for providers to define the semantics of their custom states.

e.g:

• A way to flag which states are “final” (which would be used in place of checking for completed/cancelled)
• A way to indicate which states can be set as the “desiredState” (based on what the current state is)
• Some way to indicate to orchestrators which states mean that control is passed back to them (i.e. all “final” states, plus the “ready/deployed” state)
• Perhaps also some way to indicate to workers the relationship between states and their control.

Pros of this custom state semantics approach:

• Greater flexibility

Cons:

• Drastically increases complexity (so clients & providers are less likely to implement it, which reduces its usefulness as a standard)
• Might end up being too specific, making some desired implementations unachievable
• May be prone to differing interpretations, which significantly impairs interoperability

Extended scenario: multiple-client use of deployed resource

Once the resource has been deployed other Clients, or other users or resources on the same Client, could notify the Provider that they are using (or have a “using interest”) in that deployed resource, and the Provider will only tear it down after they have all finished using it. The initial Client who requested the deployment could include a property on the request, which should be mirrored on the result, whether they intend the deployment for single-Client use or for shared use.

• Client 1 creates a request, and either:
  • Client 1 indicated that it was sharable, or
  • Client 1 did not indicate a sharing preference and the Provider’s default is to allow sharing
• The Provider does the deployment
• Client 2 sees the result, and that it has been deployed and not torn down, and that it is sharable, and that it wants to use it
• Client 2 informs the Provider that it is using that result (registers itself as an interested party)
• Client 1 finishes with the deployed resource and notifies the provider of this
• The Provider does NOT tear down the deployed resource
• Client 2 finishes with the deployed resource and notifies the provider of this (deregisters itself as an interested party)
• The Provider tears down the deployed resource (immediately or at a later time)

Effect on standardisation options

Effect on option 1)

Pros:

• If there are multiple clients who have registered an interest in this result, then for all except the last client the linked “undeploy” autoPlan merely removes them from the interested parties list.

Effect on options 2) and 3)

• There’s a minor issue that once Client 1 indicates that they are finished by setting the desiredState to “torn down” (or whatever the final state is) it will sit in that state until all the interested parties have deregistered. (See point 2 in “Extended option 2”). However, maybe that is an appropriate way of showing that the deployed resource is in a state of “will be torn down when all interested parties deregister”.

Mechanism for registering interest

• A partial update (see PATCH) on automation result to add a URL representing itself to a collection of “interestedParties”. That URL is arbitrary from the Provider’s point of view, but must be under the control of the Client (i.e. under the client’s domain name) in such a way that it is unique across clients. For clients who are not accessed themselves via a URL, they could use their IP address on their local network with a UUID appended, e.g. http://10.0.0.1/f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6 (although it would be better if this were not an http URI, but something like the tag: scheme or urn: instead).

• If the client sends an initial request without specifying whether or not it is sharable, the Provider default is used. I would suggest the default should be to allow it to be sharable for most cases (but some providers may have specific cases).

Extended option 2)

When shutting down:

1. Client 1 sets the desiredState property to the final state (e.g. “torn down”)
2. If it receives a 2xx return code, then it should consider its request accepted. Only if it really wants to wait until the teardown is finished should it poll the actual state, otherwise it should just consider the deployed resource gone.
3. The Provider keeps the result in the state that indicates it is deployed and not torn down, and keeps the desiredState as the state set by Client 1.
4. Client 2 removes itself as an interested party
5. The Provider sees that it has a deployedState indicating that tear down is requested, and there are no interested parties registers, so tears down the deployed resource.

Note that the clients act differently depending on whether they were the client who created the request, or a client who discovered an existing result to use. This is a benefit as it allows the “interested parties” behaviour to be optional on the client-side. Clients who do not implement that behaviour can still create requests, and can still request them to be torn down when they have finished with them. However, they must understand that they ought to check the response code of the PUT they used to set the desired state rather than polling to wait for the actual state to change.

Other considerations to discuss

• Distinguishing which results must be torn down when finished, which can be torn down but don’t need to be, and which can’t.
• Should the initial requesting client (or any other client) be able to force a shutdown irrespective of the interested parties list? ** They could probably do this by clearing the interested parties list themselves, then tearing down as usual. Therefore we should allow any client to remove any entry in this list, or alternatively provide a “force tear down” option somehow.
• Note that other clients (e.g. orchestrators, managers) who may want to tear the deployed resource down will be subject to the same constraints as the initial requesting client. That is, it will not be shut down until the interested parties list is empty.
• Dealing with clients that register as an interested party (or create a request) then never deregister themselves (e.g. crash or hang). ** Perhaps have a timeout? Clients could provide their own timeout (up to a Provider-specified maximum) or the Provider could have a default. Clients could increase their timeout periodically if they are still using it, allowing them in total to go beyond the Provider-specified maximum.
• The term “interested party” might be too vague, because it is specifically clients that are using the deployed resuorce, not all who have an interest in it (e.g. there might be some who are interested in being notified when it is torn down, but are not actively using it). Perhaps “inUseBy” is a better name for the relationship.
• If the Provider is charging the Client based on its usage of the deployed resource, then the charging should probably stop at the point the teardown is requested, not the point at which it is torn down. i.e. generic providers should probably record when the clients no longer require the deployed resource, in case other components are calculating cost.

We suggest the extended option (2).