[pve-devel] [PATCH ha-manager 05/15] rules: add colocation rule plugin

[Daniel Kral]

On 4/25/25 16:05, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Not much to add to Fabian's review :)
> 
> Am 25.03.25 um 16:12 schrieb Daniel Kral:
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/HA/Rules/Colocation.pm b/src/PVE/HA/Rules/Colocation.pm
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..808d48e
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/src/PVE/HA/Rules/Colocation.pm
>> @@ -0,0 +1,391 @@
>> +package PVE::HA::Rules::Colocation;
>> +
>> +use strict;
>> +use warnings;
>> +
>> +use Data::Dumper;
>> +
>> +use PVE::JSONSchema qw(get_standard_option);
> 
> Missing include of PVE::Tools.
> 
> Nit: I'd put a blank here to separate modules from different packages
> and modules from the same package.
> 
>> +use PVE::HA::Tools;
>> +
>> +use base qw(PVE::HA::Rules);
>> +
>> +sub type {
>> +    return 'colocation';
>> +}
>> +
>> +sub properties {
>> +    return {
>> +	services => get_standard_option('pve-ha-resource-id-list'),
>> +	affinity => {
>> +	    description => "Describes whether the services are supposed to be kept on separate"
>> +		. " nodes, or are supposed to be kept together on the same node.",
>> +	    type => 'string',
>> +	    enum => ['separate', 'together'],
>> +	    optional => 0,
>> +	},
>> +	strict => {
>> +	    description => "Describes whether the colocation rule is mandatory or optional.",
>> +	    type => 'boolean',
>> +	    optional => 0,
>> +	},
>> +    }
> 
> Style nit: missing semicolon
> 
> Since we should move the property definitions to the base module once a
> second plugin re-uses them later: should we already declare 'services'
> and 'strict' in the base module to start out? Then we could implement
> the encode/decode part for 'services' there already. Less moving around
> or duplication later on.

Yes, especially as Fabian also agreed that it would make sense that 
users are allowed to make location rules for multiple services in a 
single rule.

I'll start to use the isolated_properties option that @Dominik 
implemented so that other options can be separated and have 
plugin-specific descriptions, etc. but services can definitely live with 
a more general description.

> 
>> +}
>> +
>> +sub options {
>> +    return {
>> +	services => { optional => 0 },
>> +	strict => { optional => 0 },
>> +	affinity => { optional => 0 },
>> +	comment => { optional => 1 },
>> +    };
>> +};
>> +
>> +sub decode_value {
>> +    my ($class, $type, $key, $value) = @_;
>> +
>> +    if ($key eq 'services') {
>> +	my $res = {};
>> +
>> +	for my $service (PVE::Tools::split_list($value)) {
>> +	    if (PVE::HA::Tools::pve_verify_ha_resource_id($service)) {
>> +		$res->{$service} = 1;
>> +	    }
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return $res;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    return $value;
>> +}
>> +
>> +sub encode_value {
>> +    my ($class, $type, $key, $value) = @_;
>> +
>> +    if ($key eq 'services') {
>> +	PVE::HA::Tools::pve_verify_ha_resource_id($_) for (keys %$value);
> 
> Style nit:
> [I] febner at dev8 /usr/share/perl5/PVE> ag "for keys" | wc -l
> 28
> [I] febner at dev8 /usr/share/perl5/PVE> ag "for \(keys" | wc -l
> 0

ACK, will change that :)

> 
>> +
>> +	return join(',', keys %$value);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    return $value;
>> +}
>> +
> 
> ---snip 8<---
> 
>> +=head3 check_service_count($rules)
>> +
>> +Returns a list of conflicts caused by colocation rules, which do not have
>> +enough services in them, defined in C<$rules>.
>> +
>> +If there are no conflicts, the returned list is empty.
>> +
>> +=cut
>> +
>> +sub check_services_count {
>> +    my ($rules) = @_;
>> +
>> +    my $conflicts = [];
>> +
>> +    foreach_colocation_rule($rules, sub {
>> +	my ($rule, $ruleid) = @_;
>> +
>> +	push @$conflicts, $ruleid if (scalar(keys %{$rule->{services}}) < 2);
> 
> Style nit: parentheses for post-if
> 

ACK, removed the outer parentheses