2026-01-14 04:53:21 +00:00
|
|
|
# Design Principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provisioning is built on a foundation of architectural principles that guide design decisions,
|
|
|
|
|
ensure system quality, and maintain consistency across the codebase.
|
|
|
|
|
These principles have evolved from real-world experience
|
|
|
|
|
and represent lessons learned from complex infrastructure automation challenges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Core Architectural Principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 1. Project Architecture Principles (PAP) Compliance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Fully agnostic and configuration-driven, not hardcoded. Use abstraction layers dynamically loaded from configurations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Infrastructure as Code (IaC) systems must be flexible enough to adapt to any environment
|
|
|
|
|
without code changes. Hardcoded values defeat the purpose of IaC and create maintenance burdens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Guidelines**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Never patch the system with hardcoded fallbacks when configuration parsing fails
|
|
|
|
|
- All behavior must be configurable through the hierarchical configuration system
|
|
|
|
|
- Use abstraction layers that are dynamically loaded from configuration
|
|
|
|
|
- Validate configuration fully before execution, fail fast on invalid config
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Anti-Patterns (Anti-PAP)**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Hardcoded provider endpoints or credentials
|
|
|
|
|
- Environment-specific logic in code
|
|
|
|
|
- Fallback to default values when configuration is missing
|
|
|
|
|
- Mixed configuration and implementation logic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Example**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
# ✅ PAP Compliant - Configuration-driven
|
|
|
|
|
[providers.aws]
|
|
|
|
|
regions = ["us-west-2", "us-east-1"]
|
|
|
|
|
instance_types = ["t3.micro", "t3.small"]
|
|
|
|
|
api_endpoint = "https://ec2.amazonaws.com"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# ❌ Anti-PAP - Hardcoded fallback in code
|
|
|
|
|
if config.providers.aws.regions.is_empty() {
|
|
|
|
|
regions = vec!["us-west-2"]; // Hardcoded fallback
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 2. Hybrid Architecture Optimization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Use each language for what it does best - Rust for coordination, Nushell for business logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Different languages have different strengths. Rust excels at performance-critical coordination tasks, while Nushell excels at
|
|
|
|
|
configuration management and domain-specific operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Guidelines**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Rust handles orchestration, state management, and performance-critical paths
|
|
|
|
|
- Nushell handles provider operations, configuration processing, and CLI interfaces
|
|
|
|
|
- Clear boundaries between language responsibilities
|
|
|
|
|
- Structured data exchange (JSON) between languages
|
|
|
|
|
- Preserve existing domain expertise in Nushell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Language Responsibility Matrix**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
Rust Layer:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Workflow orchestration and coordination
|
|
|
|
|
├── REST API servers and HTTP endpoints
|
|
|
|
|
├── State persistence and checkpoint management
|
|
|
|
|
├── Parallel processing and batch operations
|
|
|
|
|
├── Error recovery and rollback logic
|
|
|
|
|
└── Performance-critical data processing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nushell Layer:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Provider implementations (AWS, UpCloud, local)
|
|
|
|
|
├── Task service management and configuration
|
|
|
|
|
├── Nickel configuration processing and validation
|
|
|
|
|
├── Template generation and Infrastructure as Code
|
|
|
|
|
├── CLI user interfaces and interactive tools
|
|
|
|
|
└── Domain-specific business logic
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 3. Configuration-First Architecture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: All system behavior is determined by configuration, with clear hierarchical precedence and validation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: True Infrastructure as Code requires that all behavior be configurable without code changes. Configuration hierarchy provides
|
|
|
|
|
flexibility while maintaining predictability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Configuration Hierarchy** (precedence order):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Runtime Parameters (highest precedence)
|
|
|
|
|
2. Environment Configuration
|
|
|
|
|
3. Infrastructure Configuration
|
|
|
|
|
4. User Configuration
|
|
|
|
|
5. System Defaults (lowest precedence)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Guidelines**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Complete configuration validation before execution
|
|
|
|
|
- Variable interpolation for dynamic values
|
|
|
|
|
- Schema-based validation using Nickel
|
|
|
|
|
- Configuration immutability during execution
|
|
|
|
|
- Comprehensive error reporting for configuration issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 4. Domain-Driven Structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Organize code by business domains and functional boundaries, not by technical concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Domain-driven organization scales better, reduces coupling, and enables focused development by domain experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Domain Organization**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
├── core/ # Core system and library functions
|
|
|
|
|
├── platform/ # High-performance coordination layer
|
|
|
|
|
├── provisioning/ # Main business logic with providers and services
|
|
|
|
|
├── control-center/ # Web-based management interface
|
|
|
|
|
├── tools/ # Development and utility tools
|
|
|
|
|
└── extensions/ # Plugin and extension framework
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Domain Responsibilities**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Each domain has clear ownership and boundaries
|
|
|
|
|
- Cross-domain communication through well-defined interfaces
|
|
|
|
|
- Domain-specific testing and validation strategies
|
|
|
|
|
- Independent evolution and versioning within architectural guidelines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 5. Isolation and Modularity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Components are isolated, modular, and independently deployable with clear interface contracts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Isolation enables independent development, testing, and deployment. Clear interfaces prevent tight coupling and enable system
|
|
|
|
|
evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Guidelines**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- User workspace isolation from system installation
|
|
|
|
|
- Extension sandboxing and security boundaries
|
|
|
|
|
- Provider abstraction with standardized interfaces
|
|
|
|
|
- Service modularity with dependency management
|
|
|
|
|
- Clear API contracts between components
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Quality Attribute Principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 6. Reliability Through Recovery
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Build comprehensive error recovery and rollback capabilities into every operation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Infrastructure operations can fail at any point. Systems must be able to recover gracefully and maintain consistent state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Guidelines**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Checkpoint-based recovery for long-running workflows
|
|
|
|
|
- Comprehensive rollback capabilities for all operations
|
|
|
|
|
- Transactional semantics where possible
|
|
|
|
|
- State validation and consistency checks
|
|
|
|
|
- Detailed audit trails for debugging and recovery
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Recovery Strategies**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
Operation Level:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Atomic operations with rollback
|
|
|
|
|
├── Retry logic with exponential backoff
|
|
|
|
|
├── Circuit breakers for external dependencies
|
|
|
|
|
└── Graceful degradation on partial failures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workflow Level:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Checkpoint-based recovery
|
|
|
|
|
├── Dependency-aware rollback
|
|
|
|
|
├── State consistency validation
|
|
|
|
|
└── Resume from failure points
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
System Level:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Health monitoring and alerting
|
|
|
|
|
├── Automatic recovery procedures
|
|
|
|
|
├── Data backup and restoration
|
|
|
|
|
└── Disaster recovery capabilities
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 7. Performance Through Parallelism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Design for parallel execution and efficient resource utilization while maintaining correctness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Infrastructure operations often involve multiple independent resources that can be processed in parallel for significant performance
|
|
|
|
|
gains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Guidelines**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Configurable parallelism limits to prevent resource exhaustion
|
|
|
|
|
- Dependency-aware parallel execution
|
|
|
|
|
- Resource pooling and connection management
|
|
|
|
|
- Efficient data structures and algorithms
|
|
|
|
|
- Memory-conscious processing for large datasets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 8. Security Through Isolation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Implement security through isolation boundaries, least privilege, and comprehensive validation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Infrastructure systems handle sensitive data and powerful operations. Security must be built in at the architectural level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Security Implementation**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
Authentication & Authorization:
|
|
|
|
|
├── API authentication for external access
|
|
|
|
|
├── Role-based access control for operations
|
|
|
|
|
├── Permission validation before execution
|
|
|
|
|
└── Audit logging for all security events
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data Protection:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Encrypted secrets management (SOPS/Age)
|
|
|
|
|
├── Secure configuration file handling
|
|
|
|
|
├── Network communication encryption
|
|
|
|
|
└── Sensitive data sanitization in logs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isolation Boundaries:
|
|
|
|
|
├── User workspace isolation
|
|
|
|
|
├── Extension sandboxing
|
|
|
|
|
├── Provider credential isolation
|
|
|
|
|
└── Process and network isolation
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Development Methodology Principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 9. Configuration-Driven Testing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Tests should be configuration-driven and validate both happy path and error conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Infrastructure systems must work across diverse environments and configurations. Tests must validate the configuration-driven nature of
|
|
|
|
|
the system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Testing Strategy**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
Unit Testing:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Configuration validation tests
|
|
|
|
|
├── Individual component tests
|
|
|
|
|
├── Error condition tests
|
|
|
|
|
└── Performance benchmark tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integration Testing:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Multi-provider workflow tests
|
|
|
|
|
├── Configuration hierarchy tests
|
|
|
|
|
├── Error recovery tests
|
|
|
|
|
└── End-to-end scenario tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
System Testing:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Full deployment tests
|
|
|
|
|
├── Upgrade and migration tests
|
|
|
|
|
├── Performance and scalability tests
|
|
|
|
|
└── Security and isolation tests
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Error Handling Principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 11. Fail Fast, Recover Gracefully
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Validate early and fail fast on errors, but provide comprehensive recovery mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Early validation prevents complex error states, while graceful recovery maintains system reliability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Guidelines**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Complete configuration validation before execution
|
|
|
|
|
- Input validation at system boundaries
|
|
|
|
|
- Clear error messages without internal stack traces (except in DEBUG mode)
|
|
|
|
|
- Comprehensive error categorization and handling
|
|
|
|
|
- Recovery procedures for all error categories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Error Categories**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
Configuration Errors:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Invalid configuration syntax
|
|
|
|
|
├── Missing required configuration
|
|
|
|
|
├── Configuration conflicts
|
|
|
|
|
└── Schema validation failures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Runtime Errors:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Provider API failures
|
|
|
|
|
├── Network connectivity issues
|
|
|
|
|
├── Resource availability problems
|
|
|
|
|
└── Permission and authentication errors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
System Errors:
|
|
|
|
|
├── File system access problems
|
|
|
|
|
├── Memory and resource exhaustion
|
|
|
|
|
├── Process communication failures
|
|
|
|
|
└── External dependency failures
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 12. Observable Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: All operations must be observable through comprehensive logging, metrics, and monitoring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Infrastructure operations must be debuggable and monitorable in production environments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Observability Implementation**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
Logging:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Structured JSON logging
|
|
|
|
|
├── Configurable log levels
|
|
|
|
|
├── Context-aware log messages
|
|
|
|
|
└── Audit trail for all operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metrics:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Operation performance metrics
|
|
|
|
|
├── Resource utilization metrics
|
|
|
|
|
├── Error rate and type metrics
|
|
|
|
|
└── Business logic metrics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Health check endpoints
|
|
|
|
|
├── Real-time status reporting
|
|
|
|
|
├── Workflow progress tracking
|
|
|
|
|
└── Alert integration capabilities
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Evolution and Maintenance Principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 13. Backward Compatibility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Maintain backward compatibility for configuration, APIs, and user interfaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Infrastructure systems are long-lived and must support existing configurations and workflows during evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Compatibility Guidelines**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Semantic versioning for all interfaces
|
|
|
|
|
- Configuration migration tools and procedures
|
|
|
|
|
- Deprecation warnings and migration guides
|
|
|
|
|
- API versioning for external interfaces
|
|
|
|
|
- Comprehensive upgrade testing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 14. Documentation-Driven Development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Architecture decisions, APIs, and operational procedures must be thoroughly documented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Infrastructure systems are complex and require clear documentation for operation, maintenance, and evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Documentation Requirements**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for major decisions
|
|
|
|
|
- API documentation with examples
|
|
|
|
|
- Operational runbooks and procedures
|
|
|
|
|
- Configuration guides and examples
|
|
|
|
|
- Troubleshooting guides and common issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 15. Technical Debt Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: Actively manage technical debt through regular assessment and systematic improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Infrastructure systems accumulate complexity over time. Proactive debt management prevents system degradation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Debt Management Strategy**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Regular code quality reviews
|
|
|
|
|
├── Performance profiling and optimization
|
|
|
|
|
├── Security audit and updates
|
|
|
|
|
└── Dependency management and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvement:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Refactoring for clarity and maintainability
|
|
|
|
|
├── Performance optimization based on metrics
|
|
|
|
|
├── Security enhancement and hardening
|
|
|
|
|
└── Test coverage improvement and validation
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Trade-off Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 16. Explicit Trade-off Documentation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Principle**: All architectural trade-offs must be explicitly documented with rationale and alternatives considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**: Understanding trade-offs enables informed decision making and future evolution of the system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Trade-off Categories**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
|
|
|
Performance vs. Maintainability:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Rust coordination layer for performance
|
|
|
|
|
├── Nushell business logic for maintainability
|
|
|
|
|
├── Caching strategies for speed vs. consistency
|
|
|
|
|
└── Parallel processing vs. resource usage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flexibility vs. Complexity:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Configuration-driven architecture vs. simplicity
|
|
|
|
|
├── Extension framework vs. core system complexity
|
|
|
|
|
├── Multi-provider support vs. specialization
|
|
|
|
|
└── Hierarchical configuration vs. simple key-value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security vs. Usability:
|
|
|
|
|
├── Workspace isolation vs. convenience
|
|
|
|
|
├── Extension sandboxing vs. functionality
|
|
|
|
|
├── Authentication requirements vs. ease of use
|
|
|
|
|
└── Audit logging vs. performance overhead
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These design principles form the foundation of provisioning's architecture. They guide decision making, ensure quality, and provide a framework for
|
|
|
|
|
system evolution. Adherence to these principles has enabled the development of a sophisticated, reliable, and maintainable infrastructure automation
|
|
|
|
|
platform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The principles are living guidelines that evolve with the system while maintaining core architectural integrity. They serve as both implementation
|
|
|
|
|
guidance and evaluation criteria for new features and modifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Success in applying these principles is measured by:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- System reliability and error recovery capabilities
|
|
|
|
|
- Development efficiency and maintainability
|
|
|
|
|
- Configuration flexibility and user experience
|
|
|
|
|
- Performance and scalability characteristics
|
|
|
|
|
- Security and isolation effectiveness
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These principles represent the distilled wisdom from building and operating complex infrastructure automation systems at scale.
|