Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

every new system should have a target blueprint #5222

Closed
davepacheco opened this issue Mar 7, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #5244
Closed

every new system should have a target blueprint #5222

davepacheco opened this issue Mar 7, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #5244
Assignees

Comments

@davepacheco
Copy link
Collaborator

Blueprints represent the canonical configuration of various subsystems, like the set of Omicron zones deployed on sleds. Every system should have one.

On today's ad hoc update call we discussed a plan where RSS would construct a Blueprint describing its ServicePlan and pass that off to Nexus during the initial handoff. This would then be made the initial target blueprint, presumably disabled. This way, we could always assume a system has a target blueprint.

jgallagher added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2024
)

I would like to test that after an RSS handoff, the initial blueprint we
created in RSS and set in the Nexus handoff matches the blueprint we
would generate from the first inventory collections. I can do that by
hand on `madrid`, but I'm not sure there's a good way to do that in an
automated test. Is this something I could lean on a4x2 to check?

This does not modify the `services` table or the `services` field of the
RSS handoff. Removing those will come in a followup PR that will need an
accompanying note for deployed systems (i.e., instructions to set a
blueprint so the current users of `services` will continue to function
by checking the current target blueprint).

Closes #5222.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants