Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
196 lines (129 loc) · 6.82 KB

template.md

File metadata and controls

196 lines (129 loc) · 6.82 KB

Title

Keep it simple and descriptive.

  • Proposal: < GITHUB ISSUE URL >
  • See Also:
    • < RELEVANT URL >
    • < RELEVANT URL >

Summary

Provide a short summary of what is being proposed. The Summary section is incredibly important for producing high quality user-focused documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It should be possible to collect this information before implementation begins in order to avoid requiring implementers to split their attention between writing release notes and implementing the feature itself.

A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length.

Motivation

This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals and non-goals of this proposal. To support what is being proposed, provide details on why this change is important. If user stories are relevant to this proposal, add them below.

  • Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users.

Goals

  • List the specific high-level goals of the proposal.
  • How will we know that this has succeeded?

Non-Goals/Future Work

  • What high-levels are out of scope for this proposal?
  • Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion and make progress.

Proposal

This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal actually is. Provide a detailed proposal of what would be done and how; feel free to add multiple subsections, diagrams, and config/code snippets

  • What is the plan for implementing this feature?
  • What data model changes, additions, or removals are required?
  • Provide a scenario, or example.
  • Use diagrams to communicate concepts, flows of execution, and states.

User Stories

  • Detail the things that people will be able to do if this proposal is implemented.
  • Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of the system.
  • The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting bogged down.

Story 1

Story 2

Requirements

Some authors may wish to use requirements in addition to user stories. Technical requirements should derived from user stories, and provide a trace from use case to design, implementation and test case. Requirements can be prioritised using the MoSCoW (MUST, SHOULD, COULD, WON'T) criteria.

The FR and NFR notation is intended to be used as cross-references across a CAEP.

The difference between goals and requirements is that between an executive summary and the body of a document. Each requirement should be in support of a goal, but narrowly scoped in a way that is verifiable or ideally - testable.

Functional Requirements

Functional requirements are the properties that this design should include.

FR1
FR2

Non-Functional Requirements

Non-functional requirements are user expectations of the solution. Include considerations for performance, reliability and security.

NFR1
NFR2

Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints

  • What are some important details that didn't come across above.
  • What are the caveats to the implementation?
  • Go in to as much detail as necessary here.
  • Talk about core concepts and how they relate.

Security Model

Document the intended security model for the proposal, including implications on the Kubernetes RBAC model. Questions you may want to answer include:

  • Does this proposal implement security controls or require the need to do so?
    • If so, consider describing the different roles and permissions with tables.
  • Are their adequate security warnings where appropriate.
  • Are regex expressions going to be used, and are their appropriate defenses against DOS.
  • Is any sensitive data being stored in a secret, and only exists for as long as necessary?

Risks and Mitigations

  • What are the risks of this proposal and how do we mitigate? Think broadly.
  • How will UX be reviewed and by whom?
  • How will security be reviewed and by whom?
  • Consider including folks that also work outside the SIG or subproject.

Compatibility

If this change impacts compatibility of previous versions of TCE or software integrated with TCE, please call it out here. If incompatibilities can be mitigated, please add it here.

Alternatives

The Alternatives section is used to highlight and record other possible approaches to delivering the value proposed by a proposal.

Upgrade Strategy

If applicable, how will the component be upgraded? Make sure this is in the test plan.

Consider the following in developing an upgrade strategy for this enhancement:

  • What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing cluster required to make on upgrade in order to keep previous behavior?

Additional Details

Test Plan

Note: Section not required until targeted at a release.

Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement:

  • Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests?
  • How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components?

No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly challenging to test should be called out.

All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage expectations).

Graduation Criteria

Note: Section not required until targeted at a release.

Define graduation milestones.

These may be defined in terms of API maturity, or as something else. Initial proposal should keep this high-level with a focus on what signals will be looked at to determine graduation.

Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this enhancement:

Clearly define what graduation means by either linking to the API doc definition, or by redefining what graduation means.

In general, we try to use the same stages (alpha, beta, GA), regardless how the functionality is accessed.

Version Skew Strategy

If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other components? What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.