Arvados

21165-installer-uninstalls-wb1 @ 44f0031

• All agreed upon points are implemented / addressed.
  • Yes
• Anything not implemented (discovered or discussed during work) has a follow-up story.
  • No
• Code is tested and passing, both automated and manual, what manual testing was done is described
  • Tested manually by deploying a test cluster with wb1 and then applying this change and confirming that wb1 was uninstalled.
• Documentation has been updated.
  • N/A
• Behaves appropriately at the intended scale (describe intended scale).
  • N/A
• Considered backwards and forwards compatibility issues between client and server.
  • This change is helpful for cleaning up already running clusters that have wb1 installed.
• Follows our coding standards and GUI style guidelines.
  • Yes

At first I attempted to use the already existing arvados.workbench.package.clean state in arvados-formula, but it uninstalls more packages than really desired, so this branch only adds a new state that uninstalls the arvados-workbench package (if present).

Lucas Di Pentima wrote in #note-7:

21165-installer-uninstalls-wb1 @ 44f0031

Why are there no changes for the single-node configurations? Or the all-roles half of provision.sh (if [ -z "${ROLES:-}" ])?

Brett Smith wrote in #note-8:

Why are there no changes for the single-node configurations? Or the all-roles half of provision.sh (if [ -z "${ROLES:-}" ])?

Sorry for not clarifying this earlier, I didn't thought it was important to clean up non-production installations like a single-host case.

I've added that at 8b5d03935a

Lucas Di Pentima wrote in #note-9:

Sorry for not clarifying this earlier, I didn't thought it was important to clean up non-production installations like a single-host case.

For what it's worth this answer is basically fine by me. I feel like the real problem here is not a problem with this branch but the way we talk about the single-node installer. The documentation says,

NOTE: The single host installation is a good choice for evaluating Arvados, but it is not recommended for production use.

But "not recommended" is not quite the same thing as "not supported." I think as a team we're overdue to reevaluate what we want the single node installer to be used for (if anything), and then update our documentation to accurately communicate that to users. Because this situation where the documentation says one thing but internally we think about it a different way and we have to negotiate which one is more important during branch review is not a good one to be in long-term.

I've added that at 8b5d03935a

LGTM, thanks.