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

Migration Logic Timeline #26

Closed
kristinapathak opened this issue Feb 25, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Migration Logic Timeline #26

kristinapathak opened this issue Feb 25, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@kristinapathak
Copy link
Contributor

We're adding logic to help with transitioning from using SNS to support webhooks to using argus, but what is the long term plan for that code? Will it be easy to remove later? Is there any work we can do now to encapsulate that code to its own package/files as much as possible for easy removal? Under what circumstances will we remove the migration code in the future?

@kristinapathak kristinapathak added the question Further information is requested label Feb 25, 2021
@joe94
Copy link
Member

joe94 commented Feb 26, 2021

For context: the scenario in which we'll need this special migration option is if we were to jump to a version of Tr1d1um with the breaking API feature for GET /hooks to filter webhooks by owner. We need this because while webhooks have an owner associated to them in Argus, webhooks coming from SNS do not have that information.

Potential way to avoid this special logic
Create a version of Tr1d1um that integrates with Argus first before making the API breaking change. A later version can then introduce the breaking change.
How would this work? This first version of Tr1d1um would store all webhooks with the owner associated to them for POST /hook but GET /hooks won't perform the API breaking filtering. Once this version fully replaces the current Tr1d1um cluster, we won't need to worry about webhooks missing owner information and we can move on to introduce the filtering feature on the next version without any special temporary logic.

@joe94
Copy link
Member

joe94 commented Feb 26, 2021

Created #27 and #28 to address this

@joe94 joe94 closed this as completed Feb 26, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants