Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

Feature Request: ChaosInfra resource to manage the lifecycle of Chaos Infrastructures #477

Closed
smitthakkar96 opened this issue Oct 16, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@smitthakkar96
Copy link

Current Challenge

The current onboarding and offboarding process for Chaos Infra involves a manual sequence of steps, including the registerInfra call for obtaining essential information like token, infraID, and manifest. To offboard, the process requires manual resource cleanup via the deleteInfra call. This manual intervention becomes cumbersome and impractical when dealing with a large-scale deployment of Litmus execution plane across numerous clusters and namespaces.

Proposed Solution

To streamline the management of Chaos Infra at scale, we suggest introducing a custom resource specifically designed for Chaos Infra lifecycle management. Similar to the ChaosEngine resource, which abstracts the complexities of Argo Workflows, this new resource would encapsulate the entire lifecycle of Chaos Infra and its associated Kubernetes resources.

@smitthakkar96
Copy link
Author

If this feature request makes sense, I am happy to contribute this as it would simplify the adoption of Litmus in our org. Also, I am wondering if it would make sense to have a resource for project and environment entities

@neelanjan00
Copy link
Member

This sounds good! Let's hear more opinions on this from others, I am moving it to Discussion for now. If you'd like to contribute, then it will be good to start with a design spec.

@litmuschaos litmuschaos locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 14, 2024
@neelanjan00 neelanjan00 converted this issue into discussion #487 Mar 14, 2024

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants