Duffy is a system within CentOS CI Infra which allows tenants to provision and access bare metal resources of multiple architectures for the purposes of CI testing.
We need to add the ability to checkout VMs in CentOS CI in Duffy. We have OpenNebula hypervisor available, and have started developing playbooks which can be used to create VMs using the OpenNebula API, but due to the current state of how Duffy is deployed, we are blocked with new dev work to add the VM checkout functionality.
Convert/rewrite code to Python 3 Have integration/unit tests in place Use more recent versions of dependencies Create a systemd service Move to asynchronous API to avoid waiting on resource provisioning Start provisioning VMs in an abstracted manner Properly document the API and client Deployed in staging environment Abstract admin interaction with databases with the Duffy CLI Deployed in production environment
What are your nice or really nice to have wishes? Instance of Duffy available to Fedora and CentOS communities Better usage of shared resources across projects, perhaps Duffy will allow us to consolidate several systems which require access to bare metal instances with multiple architectures. Package it in a RPM package (L) centos/fedora accounts Integration (L) Sandbox API (requests don’t do anything but behave as it did) (L) Duffy CLI as a RPM package (L) API docs using the Open API Specification Enable community members / 3rd parties to provide access to nodes / perhaps temporarily to the Duffy pool. Perhaps integrate with AWS API, thereby allow access to EC2 resources.
Currently Duffy is available to the CentOS community and mainly used by the CentOS CI tenants. The redesigned Duffy would be made available to the CentOS and the Fedora community members belonging to the duffy-users group.
duffy-users
Do this initiative have any dependencies? No Skills needed? Python, Ansible, Sysadmin, RPM packaging Person who must or should be involved? CPE team members who are familiar with Duffy and CentOS CI systems Other work that should be completed prior to this initiative? No
The sooner the better as current state is 'fragile' and may be unrecoverable should there be an outage/breakage.
Metadata Update from @amoloney: - Issue tagged with: ARC Invetigating, Accepted
Metadata Update from @amoloney: - Issue untagged with: Blocked
Issue tagged with: Accepted
Metadata Update from @amoloney: - Issue tagged with: In Progress
Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)
Login to comment on this ticket.