Feature/separate inventory

[springdo]

@sherl0cks - one for you when you get a chance. Probs will be some back and forth on this one. I have moved the app stuff into a separate inventory too as an intermediate step before we completely remove it / think of a better house for it ie inside the java-app's own .openshift-applier dir.

We could also just get rid of it completely ;)

closes #159

[oybed]

@springdo @sherl0cks Not sure I totally agree with moving away from the openshift-applier provided playbook - I'd rather see us adding features if needed on the openshift-applier side. Maybe we can discuss more details when I'm back from vacation.

[springdo]

@oybed - I've updated as per your change req! Not sure what you mean about moving away from the openshift-applier..... this change all still uses the openshift-applier to drive cluster content; just in separate inventory files for different type of operations

[oybed]

@springdo I should have bolded the openshift-applier provided playbook portion. Basically, I'm thinking some of the changes made here may be a good change in the openshift-applier repo's provided playbook. But again, we can discuss that when I'm back from vacation to be more specific.

[springdo]

@oybed what changes were you thinking in particular of moving over? Trying to figure it out as don't want to have to sit on a PR for 2 weeks before we make any progress. This is the first in a few big changes we want to make to this repo so best bottom them out earlier!

[oybed]

@springdo - my comment isn’t as easy as just a quick move-a-few-lines and be done. I’d say go ahead and merge when you guys are good with this PR and we can address the playbook comment later. It also requires completing a few other outstanding features for openshift-applier, so addressing it later makes more sense from that perspective as well.

[pcarney8]

@oybed @springdo i would also like to talk about this also when you get back.

[springdo]

@pcarney8 cool man! What's the ideas have you got? Be good to hear them sooner so we can rework this PR incase of changes

[pcarney8]

@springdo not really any changes. i'm just whole hearted-ly in support of using the apply.yml and making the applier a little more Ansible-like and Ansible-friendly. The multiple inventories + multiple playbooks came out of some work I did in January and then I believe Justin did some cleaning up into the host_vars so I just wanted to get my support for it out there in support of what you're doing :smile:

I'll have a follow up on this PR that will allow the project requests be a little more dynamic. But we can discuss that later

[springdo]

@pcarney8 cool man! I think there is a lot of follow on work once this PR gets in. I'm guessing this is one of the higher priority PRs? Im at enablement next week so won't have time to focus on any of these PRs. Just thinking we'll probs need to update the CI/CD for the Labs CI/CD project to handle multiple inventory though

[sherl0cks]

Just a note that it will be at least 1 week before I get cycles to look at this. Candidly, if we have a reasonable CI strategy and a plan on how to move forward with multiple inventories, I'm OK with other team members closing this out without my direct input

[makentenza]

LGTM now