[TEP-0075] Propose object (dictionary) param and result types 🤓 #479

bobcatfish · 2021-07-16T23:41:00Z

This TEP proposes adding support for more structured params and results
by introducing objects (aka dictionaries), and introducing a (small)
subset of json schema syntax for declaring keys in the object.

This refers to TEP-0074 which will be added in a separate commit and
proposes deprecating PipelineResources.

This is based on @skaegi's proposals in tektoncd/pipeline#1393

/type tep

bobcatfish · 2021-07-16T23:41:21Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+last-updated: '2021-07-14'
+authors:
+- '@bobcatfish'
+- '@skaegi' # I didn't check with @skaegi before adding his name here, but I wanted to credit him b/c he proposed most of this in https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/1393 1.5 years ago XD


@skaegi let me know if you'd rather not be associated with this XD

ghost · 2021-07-19T16:56:30Z

/assign @sbwsg

bobcatfish · 2021-07-19T16:56:31Z

/assign sbwsg afrittoli

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

ghost · 2021-07-23T18:04:33Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+    - name: notify-slack
+      params:
+        - name: message
+          value: "about to clone $(params.gitrepo.url) at $(params.gitrepo.commitish)"


One wrinkle wrt dictionary results. Given the variable $(results.foo.path) and the following schema:

results: - name: foo schema: type: object properties: path: {}

What does my variable resolve to? Would we introduce validation to ensure a schema doesn't trample Tekton's built-in variables? Or allow users to override Tekton's vars with their own schema?

Introducing bracket notation ['path'] for dictionary params and results instead would allow us to walk this line without collision. e.g. results.foo.path could be the tekton built-in and results.foo['path'] could be the dictionary entry.

Would we introduce validation to ensure a schema doesn't trample Tekton's built-in variables?

hm this is a weird thing, but maybe not the worst thing, as long as the behavior was clear. i think you identified the best two options:
a. don't allow it
b. choose a precedence order, probably deciding the Task's param overrides the built in

Introducing bracket notation ['path'] for dictionary params and results instead would allow us to walk this line without collision.

It looks like jsonpath supports both:

. operator is the dot-child operator, which you use to denote a child element of the current element.
[ ] is the subscript operator, which you use to denote a child element of the current element (by name or index)

I'm thinking if they are both valid jsonpath, we might end up supporting both eventually? but maybe not, maybe we pick one now and that's good enough - in that case, i think i'm leaning toward [] slightly b/c that would be consistent with array indexing syntax (but maybe that will be dropped from #477 anyway haha)

If we DO want to support both eventually, then im not sure that using []will sidestep the problem you pointed out above, so I think we still need to choose (a) or (b) above - (a) would have less chance of unexpected behavior but (b) would be the most flexible. Maybe we go with (a) and if someone really needs it we could switch to (b)? (harder to go the other way)

One more idea: we could view our current syntax as already allowing dictionary/object replacement, e.g. $(results.foo.path) perhaps this syntax is saying we have a dictionary called results with a value called foo which is also a dictionary with a key called path? In that case using . syntax now would be the most consistent.

Anyway I'll wait to hear your thoughts before updating the TEP @sbwsg !

+1 to your idea of redefining Tekton's own built-in variables in terms of a dictionary schema, I really like that concept.

The problem I'm now realizing with disallowing a user's schema from overriding tekton's built-ins is that we could accidentally break folks with new releases if we added any new variables: Imagine a user defines a schema with foo: properties: bar: {} and in an update Tekton introduces a new built-in variable of foo.bar. If we took the (a) approach we'd start rejecting the user's dictionary because we've got this new built-in now.

I think precedence order (user's schema wins) is probably the only reasonable solution after all?

Most likely this would me we should lean toward prefixing our variable with something that would be reserved (tekton.* or builtin.*) and state as soon as it starts that those are not allowed to be set by the user.

+1 to your idea of redefining Tekton's own built-in variables in terms of a dictionary schema, I really like that concept.

tangent: actually i wonder if this could be an alternative way of handling variable replacement we could pursue in the future (esp if we start supporting more pipeline features via pipeline in a pod) - we could provide a dictionary of values to the executing pod and the entrypoint binary could be in control of the actual replacement 🤔

The problem I'm now realizing with disallowing a user's schema from overriding tekton's built-ins is that we could accidentally break folks with new releases if we added any new variables:

ahhh that's a great point - i agree, ill update the proposal with (b)

Most likely this would me we should lean toward prefixing our variable with something that would be reserved (tekton.* or builtin.*) and state as soon as it starts that those are not allowed to be set by the user.

That's a great idea too 🤔 im trying to understand if that would address the specific problem @sbwsg was pointing out, which seems to be specific to results (params afaik dont have any extra fields, but maybe if we had optional params one day there might be something like params.foo.bound, anyway I think the example @sbwsg is the only one we would run into today, which would be someone defining results.someobject.path - prefixing that whole thing (tekton.results.someobject.path) would have the same problem, the prefix would only help if it came right before path, e.g. results.someobject.tekton.path ? but then we'd have the same collision problem with tekton 🤔

@sbwsg while writing this out I've realized that I don't think the current collision would actually cause a problem.

For example (I added an extra key somethingelse):

results: - name: foo schema: type: object properties: path: {} somethingelse: {}

$(results.foo.path) would only be used in the context of the Task accessing the path to the file where it would write the structured result - there would be no reason to support variable replacement for accessing the keys in the Task writing the result, e.g. what would $(results.foo.somethingelse) resolve to? There'd be no reason to use it within the Task writing the result - it would only be useful in another Task consuming the result via $(tasks.previousTask.results.foo.somethingelse) or $(tasks.previousTask.results.foo.path).

Anyway I think all of this is worth articulating in detail in the proposal - and even though there are no collisions now I think it makes sense to propose a policy for how to handle them in the future.

Most likely this would me we should lean toward prefixing our variable with something that would be reserved (tekton.* or builtin.*) and state as soon as it starts that those are not allowed to be set by the user.

As a shameless plug, I'm working on turning tektoncd/pipeline#3590 into a TEP now.

Nice, very good point!

ghost · 2021-07-23T18:16:52Z

I left a bunch of comments but given we're looking at proposal rather than implementation stage I'm really happy to see this get merged!

/approve

jerop · 2021-08-02T18:50:56Z

/assign

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

vdemeester · 2021-08-05T15:48:22Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+* What if a Task tries to write more keys to a result than the result declares it contains?
+  * The TaskRun would fail (alternatively we could decide to ignore the extra keys)


I wonder why would we want them to fail ? allowing "extra" keys means it would be more easy to integrate existing tools into tasks, or use a similar tool (that generate the same output) for different task with different results.

Good point, I'll flip this around!

ah and actually this lines up with the additionalProperties config in json objects - which looks like it's true by default, i.e. allowing the inclusion of extra fields

vdemeester · 2021-08-05T15:48:59Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+* What if a Task tries to write less keys to a result than the result declares it contains?
+  * The TaskRun would fail


Could we have the notion of "optional" keys ? does it make sense ? otherwise, agreeing less keys should probably be make it fail.

hmm i tried to figure out how we'd express this with json schema and was surprised to see that by default all fields are optional unless they are explicitly required 🤔

I'm a bit torn because i dont want to augment json schema, but at the same time i feel like defaulting to "required" is more consistent with our existing interfaces. we could allow them all to be optional by default but fail once variable replacement tries to use them? or we could imply a required section that includes all the values when its not present but that feels like a slippery slope 🤔

seems like other ppl have run into similar concerns: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16204871/what-is-the-difference-between-required-vs-optional-in-json-schema

One thing that's nice about defaulting to optional is it makes it makes the default behavior safer for adding new fields. This will be particularly useful if we allow reusable schema definitions, since this would allow you to add a new field to a shared schema, then update the Tasks that use the field to now accept it.

e.g. if we wanted to add a new field to a Git resource type, optional fields would let phase the field in over time:

Add the field to the schema

Have producers / results start populating the field

Consumers start using the field once it's populated.

we could allow them all to be optional by default but fail once variable replacement tries to use them?

+1. It's a bit strange to have required optional fields, but I think this makes sense if we support shared schema types.

ahhh that's a great point @wlynch , I hadn't thought of that

bobcatfish · 2021-08-18T17:20:51Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+[pipelines#1393](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/1393#issuecomment-558833526))?
+
+**Proposal**: if possible (can find out with a proof of concept), we deprecated `type:`. We would still default to string
+when `schema` is not present, but when [array] or dict/object types are used, we use `schema`.


currently i'm leaning toward continuing to support "type" and never actually deprecating it - ill add a section on this

mattmoor · 2021-08-19T16:53:00Z

Hey I came across this looking for existing TEPs that might cover what I'm after, and this is close.

As an example, I might want to let users specify a step for syncing their source:

  params:
    - name: source-step
      description: The step to execute to fetch source
      schema:
        type: dev.tekton.taskruns.Step # This is a strawperson
  steps:
  - $(params.source-step)
  ... # More literal steps

Or a slightly more sophisticated version might blend these proposals to allow a wrapper that lets the param include volumes (for mounting secrets):

  params:
    - name: sync-source
      description: The step to execute to fetch source
      schema:
        type: object # see question below
        properties:
          step: {
            type: dev.tekton.taskruns.Step
          }
          volumes: {
            type: []dev.tekton.taskruns.Volume
          }
  steps:
  - $(params.sync-source.step)
  ... # More literal steps

  volumes:
  - $(params.sync-source.volumes)

Needing to support substitutions of structured things will make things a bit more complicated, but I think it's doable (and I'm ofc happy to chip in to help make this happen).

wlynch

Totally forgot to hit submit on this a few days ago... 🤦

wlynch · 2021-08-16T21:34:16Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+* Using the json schema syntax to describe the structure of the object is a bit verbose and might not be intuitive
+  to users; see [Alternatives](#alternatives) for discussion of an option where we create our own syntax.


Might be out of scope for this TEP, but something that would be very useful is if there was a mechanism for Task authors to reuse existing type definitions instead of defining their own schemas / copy pasting. It might be useful to pull this into a CRD that can be referenced by params. e.g.

apiversion: tekton.dev/v1 kind: ParamSchema metadata: name: GitRepo spec: type: object # see question below properties: url: { type: string # for now, all values are strings, so we could imply it } path: {} # example of implying type: string

which then could be used in Tasks:

params: - name: pull_remote schemaRef: GitRepo

This could be the way how we provide well-known types.

Going a step further (but also definitely out of scope for this TEP), this might be a mechanism we could use to support schema refs for composability.

edit: I think this is inline with what @mattmoor is suggesting.

What I was thinking is sort of inline with the idea of SchemeRefs, but built-in because we need to know the type/scheme to support substitution. This feels like a nice way to test the waters with schema refs for fairly well defined things.

Pursuing schema refs and having known schema types sounds like a great next step after this TEP - I'll include it in a "future work" section in the TEP. Having well known types like GitRepo that ship with Tekton would be really useful (esp for tools built on Tekton, like chains). If these types are built into Tekton I think the next question is what to do when people want to provide their own (also a problem we had with PipelineResources - adding your own PipelineResources required changing the Tekton Controller) - maybe people can make their own ParamSchema instances - and/or maybe we could use something as simple as a ConfigMap?

I think @mattmoor 's idea above goes a bit further than this and suggests being able to use these schemas to define the body of the Tasks themselves, e.g reusable steps which sounds to me like another proposal entirely (which maybe again could leverage this one?) and reminds me of TEP-0054 step reuse - and it also sounds like we're starting to talk about going beyond just "variable replacement" and into the realms of templating 🤔

bobcatfish · 2021-08-21T00:03:49Z

Thanks for all the feedback so far! There was a lot that was under specified XD It's ready for another look @sbwsg @vdemeester @mattmoor

Questions I'd like to ask you as you review:

What do think of the suggested approach in "required vs optional keys" - do you prefer a different approach or have any other ideas?
Do you think we should deprecate the type: array syntax or maintain that and the new schema syntax? (see "what to do with the type field")
I kind of like Alternative 1 where we introduce a small amount of shorthand on top of json schema (which would actually answer my previous question too) - do you agree or do you think we should just be verbose? (Or even define our own syntax?)

bobcatfish · 2021-08-23T16:44:34Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+If we wanted to make our adoption of the json schema syntax a less verbose, we could make a couple of changes:
+
+- We could imply `type:string` for keys by default (especially since this is the only initially supported type)
+- We could remove the top level schema section and embed the details in the param/result definition.


TODO: ive just realized that having a top level schema section is actually something we added and not a json schema specific thing so i want to update the proposal above to not use the top level schema section, and add it as an alternative instead

jerop

thanks @bobcatfish, this is exciting 🎉

afrittoli

Thank you @bobcatfish - I didn't manage to finish my review today but I wanted to share my feedback so far. The TEP looks great up - read up to L349.
I have a few comments / ideas that I'd like to discuss further, possibly for future iterations.
I will complete the review tomorrow.

afrittoli · 2021-12-04T11:03:17Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+these Pipelines cannot reliably tell when images are being built, or git repos are being used. Current ways around this
+are:
+
+* [PipelineResources](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/blob/main/docs/resources.md) (proposed to be deprecated


Deprecated now 🎉

afrittoli · 2021-12-04T11:04:12Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+
+* [PipelineResources](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/blob/main/docs/resources.md) (proposed to be deprecated
+  in [TEP-0074](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/pull/480))
+* Defining param names with special meaning, for example


perhaps results are more relevant for chains? 🤔

afrittoli · 2021-12-04T11:06:59Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+* Adding support for nesting, e.g. object params where the values are themselves objects or arrays
+  (no reason we can't add that later but trying to keep it simple for now)


Sounds good. Just to clarify, when using params / results of type object, keys and values must be strings?

One minor concern is that doing non-nested first and nested later might create more churn in the interfaces of the Tasks and Pipelines. But I think it still makes sense.

afrittoli · 2021-12-04T11:10:43Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+   Tekton could also define known interfaces, to make it easier to build these tools. For example:
+    * Images - Information such as the URL and digest
+    * Wheels and other package formats (see below)
+    * Git metadata - e.g. the state of a git repo after a clone, pull, checkout, etc.
+    * Git repo configuration - e.g. the info you need to connect to a git repo including url, proxy configuration, etc.


How do you envision those images will be defined in a machine consumable format?
Tasks may need to refer to such formats by some kind of name / reference, or alternatively tests may need to verify that a task complies with the given known interface, because else external tools that rely on it won't work (like chains).

afrittoli · 2021-12-04T11:14:01Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+     results:
+     - name: sdist_sha
+       description: sha256 (and filename) of the sdist package
+     - name: bdist_sha
+       description: sha256 (and filename) of the bdist package
+     - name: package_name
+       description: name of the uploaded package
+     - name: package_version
+       description: version of the uploaded package
+   ```


Nice.

I think this goes in the direction of saying that a task produces some artefact, which is described by an object / dict result. This is the kind of metadata / information that other tools need to handle these results nicely with less need for custom integration and annotations.

Tekton could emit higher level of abstraction events when these kind of results are produced - see the CDEvents project.

afrittoli · 2022-02-08T15:22:25Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+
+## Requirements
+
+* Must be possible to programmatically determine the structure of the object


Does this mean at authoring time, i.e. provide a schema?
I think it makes sense, but still I'm a bit torn on this.

On one side, I understand the need to validate inputs and match interfaces, so it definitely should be possible to provide a schema. Not having a schema would be similar in a way to supporting dynamic results, which do not need to be declared in the Task or Pipeline definition.

On the other side, I think that leaving this more open might give our users / pipeline authors a bit more flexibility and make it easier to write tasks. Writing a schema feels like an high bar of entry, even though with the current limitation of dict of strings it's not that complex.

To make an example from another system, GitHub actions allow one to define the outputs in the action metadata (like our results in Tasks), however outputs can be added dynamically as part of the script too - see https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-commands-for-github-actions#setting-an-output-parameter.

afrittoli · 2022-02-08T15:59:27Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+  used and supported. Instead of being an early adopter of CUE we could wait until it is more popular and then consider
+  using it (we can also delay this decision until we want to add more schema support).
+
+### Matching interfaces and extra keys


This is really nice!! :)

afrittoli · 2022-02-08T20:23:06Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+* [Matching interfaces and extra keys](#matching-interfaces-and-extra-keys)
+* [Required vs optional keys](#required-vs-optional-keys)
+
+### Defaulting to string types for values


afrittoli · 2022-02-08T20:25:00Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+This proposal suggests adding a new `properties` section to param and result definition. If we later support more json
+schema attribute such as `additionalProperties` and `required`, we'd also support them at the same level as the
+`properties` field here. (


It may be something we add on a second pass, but I really would see value in having these small schemas re-usable / sharable, being able to build a library of them - perhaps in the catalog? - that can be used across tasks and contributed to by third parties.

Reusing these schemas introduces the extra complexity of versioning them, discovering them etc but I think it's still an idea worth exploring as a follow up

afrittoli · 2022-02-08T20:28:20Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+**When the Task writes more keys than it declares in its results:**
+
+- The TaskRun will succeed
+- The additional keys will not be included in the TaskRun status


Maybe we could reconsider this one, as I mentioned earlier I would go against a strict interface but it might make it easier to use Tekton. I'd be happy to hear others' ideas about this.

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T10:39:23Z

/test pull-community-teps-lint

afrittoli

Thank you @bobcatfish - this looks great!!

I have left a few comments around the possibility of supporting schema-less objects (in parallel to schema ones) and about reusability of schemas (about which you already have a section in the future-work part).

I'm also a bit wondering how writing a JSON file to produce the result will look like for task authors. A lot of tools can produce JSON files as output, but those outputs are usually nested, so it will require in most cases having access to a shell of some kind.

/approve

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T11:20:02Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+We have several options for how we define and handle required and optional keys:
+
+1. Embrace the optional by default behavior of JSON Schema; instead of validating the presences of "required" keys via
+   jsonschema, we could do the validation based on the declared variable replacement, e.g. say a Task declares it needs


Not sure if I understand correctly 🙏

Does this mean that if a Task declares an object input foo with an optional field bar, and then in the code if tries to access $(params.foo.bar) we would then consider bar mandatory, i.e. fail at runtime if the input param does not have a bar field?

apiVersion: tekton.dev/v1beta1 kind: Task metadata: name: optional-fields spec: params: - name: foo type: object properties: bar: {} needed: {} required: ["needed"] steps: - name: first-step image: alpine env: - name: FOO_BAR value: $(params.foo.bar) script: | #!/bin/sh set -ex set -o pipefail if [ -z "$FOO_BAR ]; then echo "foo does not have a bar, or it's empty ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" fi

To clarify, I think the example above should run successfully if the input foo does not have a bar field defined. We can fail validation at runtime if foo.needed is not passed.

Does this mean that if a Task declares an object input foo with an optional field bar, and then in the code if tries to access $(params.foo.bar) we would then consider bar mandatory, i.e. fail at runtime if the input param does not have a bar field?

yes

To clarify, I think the example above should run successfully if the input foo does not have a bar field defined.

i disagree - what value would be provided for $(params.foo.bar) in that case? (and what about in future if bar is a more complex object?) (feels like this is better resolved via supporting some kind of default, either via https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/main/teps/0048-task-results-without-results.md or

the optional vs required by default discussion has been one of the hardest parts of this proposal - @jerop and i have also been discussing this in the context of tektoncd/pipeline#3497

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T12:03:34Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+1. Embrace the optional by default behavior of JSON Schema; instead of validating the presences of "required" keys via
+   jsonschema, we could do the validation based on the declared variable replacement, e.g. say a Task declares it needs
+   an object called `foo` with an attribute called `bar`. At runtime if the Task is provided with an object
+   `foo` that doesn't have an attribute called `bar` this will be okay unless the Task contains variable replacement
+   that uses it (`$(params.foo.bar)`). Con: weird because effectively we're implying `required` (assuming the fields are
+   used, and if they aren't used, why are they there) even though the JSON Schema declaration says the fields are
+   optional.


I agree with @bobcatfish comment in tektoncd/pipeline#3497 (comment) that we should distinguish between results and fields within a result.
For fields within an object result, we should rely on the schema (if one exists). If we follow jsonschema approach of optional by default, we should only enforce fields that are marked as required.

The "optional by default" approach is consistent with jsonschema, and it seems more fitting with reusability of object schemas/types. On the down it may push validation into the user steps and it seems a bit inconsistent with the rest of the Tekton API - which may be confusing to users. Still I think the pros surpass the cons.

Having an option to change the default behaviour sounds interesting, but I'm afraid it would reduce reusability, as tasks and schemas developed with on behaviour in mind may stop working if a different behaviour is configured.

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T12:59:14Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+* Using the JSON Schema syntax to describe the structure of the object is a bit verbose but looking at our
+  [Alternatives](#alternatives) this seems like the best option assuming we want to support more complex types
+  in the future.


There could be an option where we allow not having a schema.

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T13:01:39Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+        url: https://github.com/somerepo
+        path: ./my/directory/


Are default applied individually or as a whole?
I.e. is the param is specified with url but path is not set, will path be taken from the default?

My expectation would be no, so defaults are only applied to the whole object when it's not specified at all.
That might imply that we have to validate default values too. For instance if path was a required field, and the default did not include it, we should fail validation.

good point, i agree! i'll add this in the implementable PR

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T13:05:44Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+cat /place/with/actual/cloned/gitrepo.json > $(results.cloned-gitrepo.path)
+```
+
+`$(results.cloned-gitrepo.path)` refers to the path at which to write the `clone-gitrepo` object as json (tt does not


NIT: s/tt/it ?

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T13:12:30Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+      coupled
+      with [TEP-0044](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/main/teps/0044-decouple-task-composition-from-scheduling.md))
+* [Simplicity](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/main/design-principles.md#simplicity)
+    * Pro: Support for emitting object results builds on [TEP-0076](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/pull/477)


This is maybe more about flexibility, however for a user to be able to pass a json dict as a result they'll have to define a schema for the result and the same schema for input params that consume that result (in any).
I think this is perfectly acceptable in cases where users want to have extra validation and observability into the pipelines, but it might be too much for the more casual author. I wonder if we should support schema-less as well?

interesting idea but I'm not 100% sure what this would look like, could you provide an example?

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T13:13:43Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+
+[See also the TEP-0076 Array results and indexing](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/pull/477) design evaluation.
+
+* [Reusability](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/main/design-principles.md#reusability):


Another improvement in reusability, if we have a schema, would be allowing for schemas to be reused and shared

yes 💯 i think that would be a very likely next step after this

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T13:22:03Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+In the above example:
+
+```bash
+cat /place/with/actual/cloned/gitrepo.json > $(results.cloned-gitrepo.path)


NIT: I think this is the only place where it's describe how object results will be produced by users - perhaps it would be worth having a small paragraph about it?

there's also an example at https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/main/teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md#emitting-object-results but happy to add more detail there and/or here (ill at least add a link from here back to that section) anything else in particular you'd like to see covered?

afrittoli · 2022-02-09T13:29:54Z

teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md

+1. Allow definition reuse instead of having to copy and paste them around
+2. If we ship a known set of these with the Tekton Pipelines controller, they could define interfaces that tools such
+   as [Tekton Chains](https://github.com/tektoncd/chains/blob/main/docs/config.md) could rely on and build around.


+100

I didn't realise this was already part of the TEP :)
I agree it can be future work, but I think it would be an important feature to have

💯 - @wlynch and his team are planning to create a TEP to dive into this in more detail

tekton-robot · 2022-02-09T13:37:13Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: afrittoli, jerop, sbwsg

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~teps/OWNERS~~ [afrittoli,jerop]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

pritidesai · 2022-02-14T17:22:11Z

API WG - ready to merge
/lgtm

@skaegi

This TEP proposes adding support for more structured params and results by introducing objects (aka dictionaries), and introducing a (small) subset of json schema syntax for declaring keys in the object. This refers to TEP-0074 which will be added in a separate commit and proposes deprecating PipelineResources. This is based on @skaegi's proposals in tektoncd/pipeline#1393

bobcatfish · 2022-02-14T18:15:51Z

(thanks for the detailed review comments @afrittoli !! if this is merged before they are addressed I'll make sure to address them in the follow-up PR going from proposed to implementable 🙏 )

afrittoli · 2022-02-14T18:16:52Z

(thanks for the detailed review comments @afrittoli !! if this is merged before they are addressed I'll make sure to address them in the follow-up PR going from proposed to implementable 🙏 )

Thanks @bobcatfish - it sounds good.
Ready to re-lgtm then?

jerop · 2022-02-14T18:54:07Z

re-lgtming

/lgtm

xchapter7x · 2022-03-04T16:31:40Z

/area s3c

While working on (finally) updating the array result and object param/result TEPs (tektoncd/community#479 tektoncd/community#477) I realized I hadn't included an example of how to specify defaults for the new format, so I looked for an example of how we currently do this for arrays, but we had none! Hopefully now we do :D

bobcatfish · 2022-03-18T21:58:53Z

@afrittoli finally addressing your feedback:

I'm also a bit wondering how writing a JSON file to produce the result will look like for task authors. A lot of tools can produce JSON files as output, but those outputs are usually nested, so it will require in most cases having access to a shell of some kind.

that's probably true - writing simple JSON by hand isn't too bad (e.g. https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/main/teps/0075-object-param-and-result-types.md#emitting-object-results). are there any alternatives youd like to see supported that would make this easier? in #477 @mogsie suggested json text sequences as a simpler way to emit array types - but that wouldn't help much with objects

@afrittoli

Update the TEPs about array and object support (TEP-0075 and TEP-0076) to be implementable. Also addressing feedback from @afrittoli in tektoncd#479

While working on (finally) updating the array result and object param/result TEPs (tektoncd/community#479 tektoncd/community#477) I realized I hadn't included an example of how to specify defaults for the new format, so I looked for an example of how we currently do this for arrays, but we had none! Hopefully now we do :D

@afrittoli

Update the TEPs about array and object support (TEP-0075 and TEP-0076) to be implementable. Also addressing feedback from @afrittoli in #479

tekton-robot requested review from ncskier and pradeepitm12 July 16, 2021 23:41

tekton-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 16, 2021

bobcatfish commented Jul 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

bobcatfish force-pushed the dictionary_support branch from fcf37d1 to c337cc3 Compare July 16, 2021 23:47

bobcatfish added the kind/tep Categorizes issue or PR as related to a TEP (or needs a TEP). label Jul 19, 2021

bobcatfish changed the title ~~[TEP-0075] Propose object (dicitonary) param and result types 🤓~~ [TEP-0075] Propose object (dictionary) param and result types 🤓 Jul 19, 2021

tekton-robot assigned ghost Jul 19, 2021

tekton-robot assigned afrittoli Jul 19, 2021

bobcatfish mentioned this pull request Jul 19, 2021

Variable to get a list of results of a task tektoncd/pipeline#4097

Open

ghost reviewed Jul 23, 2021

View reviewed changes

tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 23, 2021

tekton-robot assigned jerop Aug 2, 2021

tekton-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 2, 2021

vdemeester reviewed Aug 5, 2021

View reviewed changes

bobcatfish mentioned this pull request Aug 17, 2021

[TEP-0076] Propose array results and indexing 🐠 #477

Merged

bobcatfish commented Aug 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

wlynch reviewed Aug 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

mattmoor mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2021

[TEP-0080] Proposal: TaskRun Pre/Post steps #502

Closed

bobcatfish mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2021

Proposal: Support . in param / result names #503

Merged

bobcatfish force-pushed the dictionary_support branch from c337cc3 to dba0d0f Compare August 21, 2021 00:00

tekton-robot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 21, 2021

bobcatfish commented Aug 23, 2021

View reviewed changes

tekton-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 1, 2022

bobcatfish force-pushed the dictionary_support branch from 7655276 to 75fd600 Compare February 2, 2022 23:21

tekton-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Feb 2, 2022

jerop approved these changes Feb 4, 2022

View reviewed changes

tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 4, 2022

jerop mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2022

TEP-0090: Matrix [Proposal] #600

Merged

afrittoli reviewed Feb 8, 2022

View reviewed changes

afrittoli reviewed Feb 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

jerop mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2022

Add resolution types to the API tektoncd/pipeline#4502

Merged

4 tasks

tekton-robot assigned pritidesai Feb 14, 2022

tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 14, 2022

bobcatfish force-pushed the dictionary_support branch from 75fd600 to 9d8cb56 Compare February 14, 2022 18:14

tekton-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 14, 2022

tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 14, 2022

tekton-robot merged commit a1c3003 into tektoncd:main Feb 14, 2022

tekton-robot added the area/s3c Issues or PRs that are related to Secure Software Supply Chain (S3C) label Mar 4, 2022

bobcatfish mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2022

[TEP-0075, 0076] Make array and object support implementable 👷‍♀️ #661

Merged

		* What if a Task tries to write more keys to a result than the result declares it contains?
		* The TaskRun would fail (alternatively we could decide to ignore the extra keys)

		* What if a Task tries to write less keys to a result than the result declares it contains?
		* The TaskRun would fail

		* Using the json schema syntax to describe the structure of the object is a bit verbose and might not be intuitive
		to users; see [Alternatives](#alternatives) for discussion of an option where we create our own syntax.

		* Adding support for nesting, e.g. object params where the values are themselves objects or arrays
		(no reason we can't add that later but trying to keep it simple for now)


		## Requirements

		* Must be possible to programmatically determine the structure of the object


		[See also the TEP-0076 Array results and indexing](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/pull/477) design evaluation.

		* [Reusability](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/main/design-principles.md#reusability):

[TEP-0075] Propose object (dictionary) param and result types 🤓 #479

[TEP-0075] Propose object (dictionary) param and result types 🤓 #479

Conversation

bobcatfish commented Jul 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ghost commented Jul 19, 2021

bobcatfish commented Jul 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bobcatfish Aug 19, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ghost commented Jul 23, 2021

jerop commented Aug 2, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mattmoor commented Aug 19, 2021

wlynch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wlynch Aug 16, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bobcatfish commented Aug 21, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jerop left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

afrittoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

afrittoli commented Feb 9, 2022

afrittoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tekton-robot commented Feb 9, 2022

pritidesai commented Feb 14, 2022

bobcatfish commented Feb 14, 2022

afrittoli commented Feb 14, 2022

jerop commented Feb 14, 2022

xchapter7x commented Mar 4, 2022

bobcatfish commented Mar 18, 2022

bobcatfish Aug 19, 2021 •

edited

Loading

wlynch Aug 16, 2021 •

edited

Loading

bobcatfish commented Aug 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading