search

cdevents / spec

A common specification for Continuous Delivery events
Apache License 2.0
125 stars 22 forks source link

Removed and upgraded predicates for service, removal consideration? #193

Open xibz opened 3 months ago

xibz commented 3 months ago

When creating predicates I think there are two avenues to look at:

  1. How consumer will use such event
  2. How tools can produce these events

Specifically, upgraded and removal seem questionable for 2.

For tools like Spinnaker, Argo, and Temporal, there is no concept of removed and/or upgraded. Artifacts are only ever deployed. This would only be possible if the user provided such metadata. Most deployments are automated, so it isn't too clear how these events could be generated. These are the only CD platforms I considered, so if there is a tool that does support these concepts, then these events have a purpose. I just did not find any.

I would like to start discussion on removal and/or adding for what makes sense in the CD type events.

xibz commented 3 months ago

One thing we could consider if it makes sense to have something like Kubernetes that would send these events. However, would that make sense to be under CD? Or a new grouping of infrastructure?

afrittoli commented 3 months ago

The events were indeed defined as thinking about generic deployment workflows. A service can be deployed for instance to Kubernetes using Helm, and through Helm, it is possible to upgrade the service and remove it. Tools that do not support such events can safely ignore them.

xibz commented 2 months ago

I wonder if it makes sense to highlight that in the docs for these events, cause they aren't necessarily apart of CD services. So users may find it confusing.

What may be odd too, is that if helm decided to implement this along with kubernetes, wont that be duplicate events?