oaodev / herd-service Goto Github PK

Herd is currently creating services for each branch and we are not using those services. We either port-forward into the pod, Reference the canonical service name from within either the router or another service.

For example the apis call http://identity-service/api/v1/acting-as which will be forwarded to whatever identity-service is plugged into. That should be a human decision made between the members of the team. "What identity-service are we developing against?" is still a decision.

We are in a position that we are manually editing services quite a lot. Every new release has it's own label that we have to re-aim services at. If we were to separate out the properties into their own labels we would have more flexibility to create longer lived services without losing the ability to narrowly target services.

current

Labels:     name=master-trafficking-service-2186654-57

better

Labels      service-name=trafficking,branch-name=master,commit=2186654,config-id=57

Sometimes the value for a secret might have an equals sign in it (like a certificate or a key). Currently, k8s_secret_description identifies the key/value pairs in the config table by splitting on equals signs ... however, it looks like it needs to split on the first equals sign in order to handle cases where the value has an equals sign in it.

This little tool would run a local container configured as a given RepCon would have and sets up port forwarding and /etc/hosts so that the container looks like it's in the cluster.

Just wanted to register my suggestion (also raised verbally in demo meeting) that putting branch names after service names in pod labels would seem to me to be more intuitive with the conceptual hierarchy of herd objects. Given that kubectl get pods sorts alphabetically, and that we tend to have a lot of branches like feature_* I would think in most cases it would be helpful to have branches of the same project sorted together, rather than similarly named branches of different services.

I don't want to overcomplicate things, but @murbanoao had mentioned that he liked seeing all the master_* pods sorted together, which makes sense to me as well. It occurred to me that it might not be that difficult to generally label with service name first, and to make an exception for master.

Anyway, all this as I say is just a suggestion. I have my opinion here, but it's hardly the only one that matters, and I won't be all upset or anything if this issue is closed without any changes, as long as it gets some discussion and consideration. Thanks!