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

Add RoleAssignment UUID Generation ADR #3935

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
---
title: '2024-04: RoleAssignments UUID Generation'
---

## Context

In ASO, we have made several improvements on making the RoleAssignment's name user-friendly by auto-generating the UUID using UUIDv5 with a seed string based on the group, kind, namespace and name.
super-harsh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
The aim for above approach was to:
- include the namespace and name to ensure no two RoleAssignments in the same cluster can end up with the same UUID.
- include the group and kind to ensure that different kinds of resources get different UUIDs. This isn't entirely required by Azure, but it makes sense to avoid collisions between two resources of different types even if they have the same namespace and name.
- include the owner group, kind, and name to avoid collisions between resources with the same name in different clusters that actually point to different Azure resources.

However, the case where users have multiple clusters with resources in the same namespace, in each cluster having the same name and pointing to the same Azure resource was skipped.
super-harsh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
The above issue can still be avoided by overriding the AzureName property with random uuids, however it's not consistent and user-friendly.
super-harsh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Issue: [RoleAssignment UUID clashes](https://github.com/Azure/azure-service-operator/issues/3637)

### Option 1: Adding a new property

Add a new property on RoleAssignment spec to control this behaviour.

To use random uuid:
```yaml
uuidGeneration: Random
```

To use deterministic uuid(default)
```yaml
uuidGeneration: Default
```

**Pro**: Backward compatible
**Pro**: Ease of use

**Con**: Need to implement infrastructure to add a new property
**Con**: Users will have to manage the AzureName by themselves while exporting/importing

### Option 2: Using annotations

We can use annotation below to control the name generation behaviour

To use random uuid:
```yaml
serviceoperator.azure.com/uuid-generation: random
matthchr marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
```

To use deterministic uuid(default)
```yaml
serviceoperator.azure.com/uuid-generation: Default
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't love Default as a value because it doesn't actually say what the default is. IMO we should call this something like Stable

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This applies to the above option 1 as well.

```
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you should talk here about how we actually do defaulting too:

There are two options:

  • If not specified, automatically set serviceoperator.azure.com/uuid-generation: Default when a resource is created when defaulting its name.
  • If not specified, don't set any annotation (but still generate a UUID as per the Default pattern.

I think it's OK to default-in the uuid-generation annotation if the user hasn't set it (and also hasn't set the name?). I guess if the name is set by the user, then we wouldn't add the annotation at all because we actualyl didn't do any generation?

and if the user sets it, we'll honor what they set (though it'll not do anything if they set it and the name)?


**Pro**: Backward compatible
**Pro**: Ease of use

**Con**: Users will have to manage the AzureName by themselves while exporting/importing
super-harsh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

### Option 3: Using subscription ID as seed

Adding subscriptionId as a seed string would make the resource names distinct across subscriptions

**Pro**: User does not have to do anything

**Con**: Moving resource with same name between multiple ASO instances would require a workaround
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Including subid in the seed doesn't imply this, does it?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

True, will update.
The case is more when Moving resource with same name between older to newer ASO version would require a workaround

**Con**: Webhooks don't have information about subscriptionID
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't this automatically disqualify Option 3 from consideration?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Kinda, however worth mentioning it here so we know why we didn't consider this option. Just in case if someone stumbles upon this in future


matthchr marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
## Status

Proposed.

## Consequences

TBC

## Experience Report

TBC

## References

None