Skip to content
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

Kubefile-linter or Clusterfile-linter for the community #1353

Open
allencloud opened this issue Apr 30, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Kubefile-linter or Clusterfile-linter for the community #1353

allencloud opened this issue Apr 30, 2022 · 5 comments
Labels
Clusterfile kind/feature Category issues or PRs related to feature request Kubefile

Comments

@allencloud
Copy link
Member

Issue Description

Type: feature request

Describe what feature you want

sealer provides a rule for users to edit a yaml file for building a cluster image. we named it as Kubefile, then Kubefile is a kind of protocol which user must obey. While Kubefile is a yaml file after all, it could happen to anybody that he typed in incorrect details in Kubefile. We wish to fail fast by some linter tools, rather than delivery incorrect content to the engine to process.

** I wish we could start up a brand new project like Kubefile-linter or something similar in https://github.com/sealerio helping users to improve effieciency.

Clusterfile has the same issue.

Additional context

Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

@allencloud allencloud added kind/feature Category issues or PRs related to feature request Clusterfile Kubefile security and removed security labels Apr 30, 2022
@kakaZhou719
Copy link
Member

@allencloud , could we add a parameter to improve efficiency ,and it works like the Kubefile-linter. like sealer build --dryrun -f Kubefile -t myimages:v1

@allencloud
Copy link
Member Author

@allencloud , could we add a parameter to improve efficiency ,and it works like the Kubefile-linter. like sealer build --dryrun -f Kubefile -t myimages:v1

@kakaZhou719 Of course we could do that just like what you suggested. While, I basically stand on the point that we should evolve the sealer project with the decoupled architecture. We designed the decoupled architecture and adopters could take advantages of each single part in different scenarios. After that, we could see that sealer is a group, not just a tool. Group has ecosystem, but tool may have limited scenario. We could grow sealer's community and ecosystem much better if we try the decoupled way.

In addition, we could open up several other repos, like preflight, status-checker, and some others.

@kakaZhou719
Copy link
Member

yes, i agree, decoupled architecture will enrich our sealerio community. we could open up a new project to do the lint work, at the same time, sealer also can use it to do the pre-check.

@kakaZhou719
Copy link
Member

kakaZhou719 commented May 6, 2022

meanwhile ,we could move application and site doc out from the sealer project.

@allencloud
Copy link
Member Author

meanwhile ,we could move application and site doc out from the sealer project.

application and website should be first kinds to be separated.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Clusterfile kind/feature Category issues or PRs related to feature request Kubefile
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants