-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 220
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
TEP-0083: Scheduled Pipelinerun & Tekton Polling
Signed-off-by: Shivam Mukhade <[email protected]>
- Loading branch information
Shivam Mukhade
committed
Sep 24, 2021
1 parent
adf7b5d
commit 4b769e0
Showing
2 changed files
with
378 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 +1,377 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| status: proposed | ||
| title: Scheduled Pipelinerun & Tekton Polling | ||
| creation-date: '2021-09-13' | ||
| last-updated: '2021-09-13' | ||
| authors: | ||
| - '@vdemeester' | ||
| - '@sm43' | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| # TEP-0083: Scheduled Pipelinerun & Tekton Polling | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| **Note:** When your TEP is complete, all of these comment blocks should be removed. | ||
| To get started with this template: | ||
| - [ ] **Fill out this file as best you can.** | ||
| At minimum, you should fill in the "Summary", and "Motivation" sections. | ||
| These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the TEP with the | ||
| appropriate Working Group. | ||
| - [ ] **Create a PR for this TEP.** | ||
| Assign it to people in the SIG that are sponsoring this process. | ||
| - [ ] **Merge early and iterate.** | ||
| Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goals of | ||
| the TEP clarified and merged quickly. The best way to do this is to just | ||
| start with the high-level sections and fill out details incrementally in | ||
| subsequent PRs. | ||
| Just because a TEP is merged does not mean it is complete or approved. Any TEP | ||
| marked as a `proposed` is a working document and subject to change. You can | ||
| denote sections that are under active debate as follows: | ||
| ``` | ||
| <<[UNRESOLVED optional short context or usernames ]>> | ||
| Stuff that is being argued. | ||
| <<[/UNRESOLVED]>> | ||
| ``` | ||
| When editing TEPS, aim for tightly-scoped, single-topic PRs to keep discussions | ||
| focused. If you disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR | ||
| with suggested changes. | ||
| If there are new details that belong in the TEP, edit the TEP. Once a | ||
| feature has become "implemented", major changes should get new TEPs. | ||
| The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source | ||
| of this file) is [here](/teps/NNNN-TEP-template/README.md). | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This is the title of your TEP. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good | ||
| title can help communicate what the TEP is and should be considered as part of | ||
| any review. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a TEP and for | ||
| highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard TEP | ||
| template. | ||
| Ensure the TOC is wrapped with | ||
| <code><!-- toc --&rt;<!-- /toc --&rt;</code> | ||
| tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- 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 | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This section is incredibly important for producing high quality user-focused | ||
| documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It should be | ||
| possible to collect this information before implementation begins in order to | ||
| avoid requiring implementors to split their attention between writing release | ||
| notes and implementing the feature itself. | ||
| A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length. | ||
| Both in this section and below, follow the guidelines of the [documentation | ||
| style guide]. In particular, wrap lines to a reasonable length, to make it | ||
| easier for reviewers to cite specific portions, and to minimize diff churn on | ||
| updates. | ||
| [documentation style guide]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/style-guide.md | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| This TEP introduces an idea for a feature in triggers which allows user to | ||
| - Schedule a pipelinerun/taskrun at a certain time | ||
| - Setup a poll which looks for changes on a repository and triggers pipelinerun/taskrun. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals and non-goals of | ||
| this TEP. Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users. The | ||
| motivation section can optionally provide links to [experience reports][] to | ||
| demonstrate the interest in a TEP within the wider Tekton community. | ||
| [experience reports]: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/ExperienceReports | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| - To allow users to schedule a pipelinerun/taskrun at a certain time or at certain interval | ||
|
|
||
| Ex. I want to run a pipeline every day at 8 am. Currently, I can do this by setting up a cronjob, but having as a part of Trigger could be a good idea. So, Triggers can start a pipelinerun at the time mentioned by me. | ||
|
|
||
| - To allow users to use triggers without need to setup a webhook. Triggers could have a feature which allow user to setup a polling feature for a repository which would look for changes in repository and trigger a pipelinerun or taskrun. | ||
|
|
||
| This was briefly discussed on Issue [#1168](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/1168) and [#480](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/480). | ||
|
|
||
| This can be solved currently by a setting up a cronjob to check for changes but having as a part of triggers could enhance triggers. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Goals | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| List the specific goals of the TEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we | ||
| know that this has succeeded? | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### Non-Goals | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| What is out of scope for this TEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion | ||
| and make progress. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### Use Cases (optional) | ||
|
|
||
| (Scheduled Run) | ||
| - As a user, I want to run a pipeline everyday at a certain time. Currently, I can setup using a cronjob which would trigger the run but having this integrated with triggers would be nice. we would do without this feature would be : a cronjob + creating a PipelineRun or a cronjob and a http call to a trigger (to simulate a webhook event). | ||
|
|
||
| (Polling) | ||
| - As a user, I don't have permission to setup a webhook on a repository having a polling feature could be helpful to solve this issue. I can configure the polling feature to look for changes and trigger a pipeline. | ||
|
|
||
| - Due to restriction of company, users might not be able to expose eventlistener publicly so this could be an option which would look for changes at certain duration and trigger a Pipelinerun. [Reference.](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/480#issuecomment-620605920) | ||
|
|
||
| - As a developer, I want to be able to setup an automated release process that would look at a given branch (release-vX…) and automatically schedule a build and tag a release in case there was new changes (on a weekly cadence for example). *Note: it can be achieved using a `CronJob` but would be nicer to be integrated in triggers*. | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| 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. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| We have a POC done around this part of this idea described in [#1168](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/1168) which defines a new CRD as below. | ||
|
|
||
| POC tries to implement the polling feature which would look for changes and trigger a piplinerun. This integrates the Trigger template and trigger binding to use data from the response of GitHub APIs used to look for changes. | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| apiVersion: triggers.tekton.dev/v1alpha1 | ||
| kind: SyncRepo | ||
| metadata: | ||
| name: test | ||
| spec: | ||
| repo: https://github.com/tektoncd/hub | ||
| branch: main | ||
| frequency: 3m | ||
| binding: pipeline-binding | ||
| template: pipeline-template | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| - This takes GitHub Repo URL and then check for changes at frequeny defined by user. | ||
| - It saves the latest commit id to status to check in further reconcilations. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Questions | ||
|
|
||
| - (sbwsg) We identify CronJobs as an existing solution for scheduling. Why aren't they good enough on their own? | ||
|
|
||
| Cronjob do cover a use case which we are proposing which is triggering run at certain interval but to check it | ||
| something is actually changed to trigger a pipelinrun/taskrun then we will need a script to check the condition. | ||
| Everytime we setup this for a repository, the user will have to write a script. This logic can be abstracted into | ||
| triggers and an interface can be exposed to user which would be simple to configure. | ||
|
|
||
| - (sbwsg) We identify an alternative project that exists today for polling GitHub. Is there a strong reason to favor a new solution | ||
| and if so what is it? Is there a strong reason to favor a project owned by Tekton and if so what is it? | ||
|
|
||
| The existing solution available is an Operator. Many developer don't have access to install operators into their clusters. | ||
| Providing this along with triggers which is installed by Tekton Operator will eliminate a need to install an addtional Operator. | ||
| So, packaging the solution with Tekton Trigger would be nice | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| (To be explored) | ||
|
|
||
| - Should we have both feature together? | ||
| - Trigger a pipelinerun at a certain time (cronjob/scheduling) | ||
| - Trigger a pipelinerun if something changed in repository (polling) | ||
|
|
||
| - Would it make sense to | ||
| - integrated polling feature with Trigger Binding and Trigger Template? or | ||
| - keep it independent which would take pipeline as input and create a pipelinerun on a change? | ||
| - or provide both of them together? | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### 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 | ||
|
|
||
| - There is an existing implementation independent of Triggers doing similar. | ||
| https://github.com/bigkevmcd/tekton-polling-operator | ||
| This has an CRD which takes input and the controller check for changes and trigger a run object. | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| 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) | ||
|
|
||
| - Polling a repository to detect changes and trigger a pipeline [#1168](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/1168) | ||
| - Poll based change detection? [#480](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/480) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Use this section to add links to GitHub issues, other TEPs, design docs in Tekton | ||
| shared drive, examples, etc. This is useful to refer back to any other related links | ||
| to get more details. | ||
| --> |
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