-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 460
Generic Extensions (actions) #431
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
Changes from 26 commits
c590bd5
cf0ed7e
5a0820c
394d76e
7242bc5
f59f077
914dc83
f66a060
a400b53
12a1a22
99b2414
451a78f
2e15360
bcae8c0
73663f5
f601296
0ce6075
586a5cc
d236bf4
8360d16
5150a30
643e47c
1a64f74
4adddfe
a38ac79
ba5cf6c
eae12ed
750bdcf
ce8cab7
480c4ac
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -841,13 +841,113 @@ For success responses, the following fields are defined: | |
| | --- | --- | --- | | ||
| | dashboard_url | string | The URL of a web-based management user interface for the Service Instance; we refer to this as a service dashboard. The URL MUST contain enough information for the dashboard to identify the resource being accessed (`9189kdfsk0vfnku` in the example below). Note: a Service Broker that wishes to return `dashboard_url` for a Service Instance MUST return it with the initial response to the provision request, even if the service is provisioned asynchronously. If present, MUST be a non-empty string. | | ||
| | operation | string | For asynchronous responses, Service Brokers MAY return an identifier representing the operation. The value of this field MUST be provided by the Platform with requests to the [Last Operation](#polling-last-operation) endpoint in a percent-encoded query parameter. If present, MUST be a non-empty string. | | ||
| | extension_apis | array-of-objects | For extensions to the Service Broker API, Service Brokers MAY return one or more `extension_api` objects that describe additional API endpoints via an OpenAPI document. See [Extension API Object](#extension-api-object) for more information. | | ||
|
|
||
| ##### Extension API Object | ||
|
|
||
| The `extension_api` object MAY be used to describe any additional endpoint | ||
| to the Open Service Broker API. An example of this could be lifecycle | ||
| management of a Service Instance, (e.g. "Day Two Operations"), like Backup, | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I would suggest the specs to clarify when an extension_api should be defined and used by broker authors w.r.t. to asking 1st class support in the OSB API. Are platforms expected to provide UI/CLI tooling for any declared extensions (i.e. dynamically generating UI from the openAPI document) ? Would generated UIs and user workflows be restricted to single API endpoint calls, or would instead spawn across multiple API calls (e.g. list backups, restore backup, delete backup) ? Are platforms instead expected to additionally support specific curated extensions and bring optimized user experience for them? If so, where/how would such curated extensions be defined and published ? Can the specs recommend use-cases for extensions such as: Would the mentioned day 2 operations seem be fitting some of the cases above?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The current thinking is it is entirely up to the broker author, and the platform can choose to provide, at minimum, the OpenAPI UI (or even just the OpenAPI url). Then platforms can extend the UI based on 'adheres_to'.
We had talked about how to batch calls but it became clear that this could be designed forever and we decided to support just the single endpoint as a first step, but nothing stops a clever broker from providing batch/aggregation on their own.
I suspect this is out of scope for the current PR, at least until we see some real world emergent behavior for generic actions. |
||
| Restore, Stop, Start, Restart and Pause. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Some of these example operations seem like they would be long-running. Is there any way for a broker to report status of a long running action back to the platform? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Related to this, is there a way brokers can provide either success or failure messages for the platform to display when an operation is run? Ideally if the request fails, the UI can give a specific error about what went wrong instead of a generic failed error.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Async ops, if enabled, would be defined via the swagger file. The platform could detect and subscribe to ops based on the returned swagger. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure how a platform can detect it only from the swagger. A human looking at it might notice an endpoint called As an end user, I'd be worried if I couldn't check the status of an operation like "Restore" and know that it completed successfully. I could see it if the platform recognized the
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think the short answer is it's not going to be possible across the board for all APIs. My thought was that the platform could recognize a callback object in the openapi doc, (https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.1.md#callbackObject) and other openapi patterns to figure out what it needs, but we won't know until someone tries. It's the main issue with going the generic route on extensions. |
||
|
|
||
| The `extension_api` MUST include a URI to an OpenAPI 3.0+ document that the | ||
| Platform can use to determine the new endpoint(s), parameter(s) and | ||
| authentication mechanism. The new APIs are extensions to the Open Service Broker | ||
| API. As such they are intended to be invoked by the Platform on behalf of its | ||
| clients. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. One thing that occurred to me reading back through this is that it's not clear how the extensions are expected be invoked. Does the platform invoke them? Do users invoke them? This is probably entangled with @spadgett's question about long-running operations.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The answer to this from the googs perspective is yes. If the platform would like to invoke them then that should be ok, and if the platform provides all the information to a third-party that should work out as well.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can the PR clarify the concurrency aspects that the platform/users should comply with when invoking extensions ? For instance, should a broker exposing a This relates to #467 |
||
|
|
||
| See [OpenAPI Server Object](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.0.md#serverObject) for more information. | ||
|
|
||
| | Response Field | Type | Description | | ||
| | --- | --- | --- | | ||
| | discovery_url* | string | A URI pointing to a valid OpenAPI 3.0+ document describing the API extension(s) to the Open Service Broker API including, endpoints, parameters, authentication mechanism and any other detail the platform needs for invocation. The location of the API extension endpoint(s) can be local to the Service Broker or on a remote server. If located on a remote server acccessing the OpenAPI document MUST NOT require authentication. MUST be a valid URI. If `discovery_url` is a path, the Platform can assume it is to be called relative to the basepath of the Service Broker. The returned OpenAPI document MUST be in json format. See the [OpenAPI Specification](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.0.md) for more information. | | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think you're implying that if the location is not on a remote server then the OpenAPI doc MUST use the same auth as normal OSBAPI calls, correct? If so, we should probably state that. |
||
| | server_url | string | A URI pointing to a remote server where API extensions will run. This URI will be used as the basepath for the endpoint(s) described by the `discovery_url` OpenAPI document. If no `server_url` is present, the Platform MUST assume the extension API endpoint(s) are to be invoked using the Service Broker host and port. If present, MUST be a valid URI. If `server_url` is a path, the Platform can assume it is to be called relative to the basepath of the Service Broker. | | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. One thing that's been raised before is having a list of the operation names present in this object to make it easier to create UIs without hitting the URI.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I added a new object to try to cover this.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Does this mean that in the OpenAPI doc they can't put the full URL for each operation? If not, perhaps add to the end of the 2nd sentence " when those endpoints are relative URLs". maybe?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Correct, the openapi endpoints are relative to one or more defined server objects. Will likely change to "path objects" which implies they are relative paths. |
||
| | credentials | object | A Service Broker MAY return authentication details for running any of the extension API calls, especially for those running on remote servers. If not present, the same authentication mechanism used for the normal Open Service Broker APIs MUST work for the new endpoint(s). If the Service Broker wants to use alternate methods of authentication, (e.g. on remote servers) it MUST provide details to that mechanism in the OpenAPI document via one or more [Security Scheme Objects](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.0.md#securitySchemeObject). Next, each extension endpoint in the OpenAPI document MUST have one or more [Security Requirement Objects](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.0.md#securityRequirementObject) defined that matches a [Security Scheme Object](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.0.md#securitySchemeObject). Lastly, the parameters needed by each [Security Scheme Object](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.0.md#securitySchemeObject), (e.g. username and password for basic authentication), MUST be provided as part of the `extension_api` object within the `credentials` object. If credentials are present in an `extension_api` object, the Platform will need to verify the authentication method from the OpenAPI document. | | ||
| | alt_instance_id | string | Refers to a parameter in the `discovery_url` OpenAPI document that maps directly to the Service Broker API `instance_id` parameter. If the extension API endpoint(s) use a different value to represent a Service Broker instance, then `alt_instance_id` MUST be present. If not present, the Platform can assume `instance_id` means Service Broker Instance in the OpenAPI document. | | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Are you investigating an alternative key name @rhodie27?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, but none of them are great. Open to other suggestions.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. More brainstorming:
I don't like There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I agree with @mattmcneeney on this, something other than id would fit better. Any of the above *_key variants seems acceptable. I think I like
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. openapi_instance_key is confirmed
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I would like to push back on this field entirely and I apologize for not being in the original discussions for it. I think alt_instance_id is an attempt at serving pre-processed open api information and the correct way to solve this issue is with vendor extensions in the open api doc. You could add a key, say
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Apology accepted. I agree, this could be done via vendor extentions, however, the overall theme I have been trying to push is to not make the service provider change their OpenAPI document to fit the service broker's needs. Perhaps the service broker author doesn't have that ability/power or the service provider doesn't want a million different vendor customizations in their pretty swagger. I guess we could always say that the Service Broker author needs to maintain their own OpenAPI document... Sounds messy.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. vote is to remove this for now. Mike to add language about the openapi doc must do this somehow. |
||
| | operation_display_names | object | A Service Broker MAY match operations in the `discovery_url` OpenAPI document with user consumable display names. If present, each key in this object MUST match an [operationID](https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.0.md#operationObject) from the `discovery_url` OpenAPI document, with each value representing a human readable string. Platforms can use this object to show end users operations that are available on their Service Instance prior to calling the `discovery_url` OpenAPI document. | | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. s/calling/retrieving/
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. How does this play with the idea of more than one broker supporting the same set of APIs? In particular, what if each provided their own set of display names and they're all different? As long as the platform never tries to do any kind of bulk action I guess that's ok - but even so, seeing a different phrase for the same semantics might give a funky UX. While I understand the desire for this, it sure would be nice if we could say something like "use the last phrase in the operation's URL/path".
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think there are multiple implementation paths for platforms to accept the extensions api:
IMO, it's pick your poison and 'operation_display_names' gives some UI advantage for #1 in that you don't need to load up the OpenAPI doc prior to generating the form for the specific operation. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't understand why display names should come back in this response. Why isn't display name included in the schema that comes from discovery_url?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @zrob the request was to have a way to show something in a platform UI before having to call the openapi document. See the comment above this, https://github.com/openservicebrokerapi/servicebroker/pull/431/files#r171010501. Also, OpenAPI doesn't have a consistent way to give operations display names. They have the operationid, description, summary, but they all serve other purposes. And I wanted to stay away from telling people how to define their openapi document, (as much as I could), so that existing ones could be used.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I would also push back on this field. I think we need to draw a line on the data that is returned from a provision is data that is specific to the instance that was created, and when instances of the same type start to return the exact same data is a red flag for me. Are we going to need the platform to remember the exact Then we also need to talk about how does this list get updated as the instance is upgraded under the brokers control and new extensions are enabled. The only way to be sure is to fetch and process the open api doc.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The request from a few different people, (mostly RH), is they want a way to get a list of keywords associated with the service instance actions, prior to having to load and parse the openapi document. Adhears_to will not be available 100% of the time, and typically will not be used when you are interested in dynamically generating any returned openapi document.
I do agree we need to draw a line, I believe this is it for validating phase. We can always remove/change if it doesn't work IRL.
The same could be said for the OpenAPI document, in general. Maybe it's different per service_instance...
The same response will be required on a service_instance update. I just haven't added that to the PR yet. |
||
| | adheres_to | string | A URI refering to a specification detailing the implementation guidelines for the OpenAPI document hosted at the `discovery_url`. While this property is a URI, there is no requirement for there to be an actual server listening at that endpoint. This value is meant to provide a unique identifier representing the set of extensions APIs supported. If present, MUST be a valid URI. | | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The semantics of this column could be clarified a little bit - what is the advantage of specifying a URI that points to a location where no server is running?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Sorry, I don't follow. Which part are you referencing?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Am I write in thinking that this field is going to be used to allow clients to spot "common" operations that they could do, say, in bulk across multiple service instances?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Often people push for unique IDs to be URIs so that they avoid strings that too simplistic - like "backup". By making it a URI its trying to force people to namespace things by including some domain name in the URI. While I've heard bulk ops as one reason for this, to me the bigger reason is that a platform (or its UI) can know when it comes across some actions that it knows about and may want to do some special processing for. E.g. perhaps it has a dedicated UI for them. W/o some well defined URI to say "yes, these are the set of ops that's been defined by spec xxx" the platform can't really be sure what those ops do. Checking (strcmp) the names of the ops alone doesn't really guarantee anything.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As per Paul's suggestion I will add some text here about what the Platform can do with this information. Should clear this up, (mildly). |
||
|
|
||
| \* Fields with an asterisk are REQUIRED. | ||
|
|
||
| #### Provisioning response | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| { | ||
| "dashboard_url": "http://example-dashboard.example.com/9189kdfsk0vfnku", | ||
| "operation": "task_10" | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
| #### Provisioning response with extentions | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| { | ||
| "dashboard_url": "http://example-dashboard.example.com/9189kdfsk0vfnku", | ||
| "operation": "task_10", | ||
| "extension_apis":[{ | ||
| "discovery_url": "http://example-openapi-doc.example.com/extensions", | ||
| "server_url": "http://myremoteserver.example.com", | ||
| "credentials": { | ||
| "basic": { | ||
| "username": "admin", | ||
| "password": "changeme" | ||
| }, | ||
| "api_key": { | ||
| "api_key": "some_key_value" | ||
| }, | ||
| "petstore_auth": { | ||
| "token": "some_token_value" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "operation_display_names": { | ||
| "createBackup": "Take Backup", | ||
| "postRestore": "Restore Instance" | ||
| }, | ||
| "alt_instance_id": "serviceInstance", | ||
| "adheres_to": "http://example-specification.example.com" | ||
| }] | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| #### OpenAPI Security Scheme Object example | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| "securitySchemes": { | ||
| "basic": { | ||
| "type": "http", | ||
| "scheme": "basic" | ||
| }, | ||
| "api_key": { | ||
| "type": "apiKey", | ||
| "name": "api_key", | ||
| "in": "header" | ||
| }, | ||
| "petstore_auth": { | ||
| "type": "oauth2", | ||
| "flows": { | ||
| "implicit": { | ||
| "authorizationUrl": "http://example.org/api/oauth/dialog", | ||
| "scopes": { | ||
| "write:pets": "modify pets in your account", | ||
| "read:pets": "read your pets" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
| #### OpenAPI Path Object example | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| "post": { | ||
| "summary": "Backup Service Instance", | ||
| "operationId": "createBackup", | ||
| "responses": { | ||
| "201": { | ||
| "description": "backup response.", | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ## Updating a Service Instance | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If https://github.com/openservicebrokerapi/servicebroker/pull/459/files is adopted then the 2nd column will need to change.