diff --git a/architecture-decision-records/012-greenhouse-label-conventions.md b/architecture-decision-records/012-greenhouse-label-conventions.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d9fedc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/architecture-decision-records/012-greenhouse-label-conventions.md @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +# 012-greenhouse-label-conventions + +- Status: [draft] +- Deciders: [Richard, Esther, Arno, Akshay, David R.] +- Date: [YYYY-MM-DD when the decision was last updated] +- Tags: [greenhouse / cloudoperators] +- Technical Story: [description | ticket/issue URL] + +## Context and Problem Statement + +Define which functionalities rely on labels and which labels these are. This should be done for the entire stack (e.g. Metrics, Logs, Alerts, Playbooks, Plutono, UIs[Supernova, ...] ...) +This also includes indentifying mandatory labels (e.g. owner-info etc.), which are used for alert routing... + +The goal of this ADR is to define a common set of labels that can be used across all components of the greenhouse stack. These labels should then also be enforced, defaulted and integrated across Greenhouse. + +## Decision Drivers + +- [driver 1, e.g., a force, facing concern, …] +- [driver 2, e.g., a force, facing concern, …] +- … + +## Considered Options + +- [option 1] +- [option 2] +- [option 3] +- … + +## Decision Outcome + +Chosen option: "[option 1]", +because [justification. e.g., only option, which meets k.o. criterion decision driver | which resolves force force | … | comes out best (see below)]. + +### Positive Consequences + +- [e.g., improvement of quality attribute satisfaction, follow-up decisions required, …] +- … + +### Negative Consequences + +- [e.g., compromising quality attribute, follow-up decisions required, …] +- … + +## Pros and Cons of the Options | Evaluation of options + +### [option 1] + +[example | description | pointer to more information | …] + +| Decision Driver | Rating | Reason | +|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------| +| [decision driver a] | +++ | Good, because [argument a] | | +| [decision driver b] | --- | Good, because [argument b] | +| [decision driver c] | -- | Bad, because [argument c] | +| [decision driver d] | o | Neutral, because [argument d] | + +### [option 2] + +[example | description | pointer to more information | …] + +| Decision Driver | Rating | Reason | +|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------| +| [decision driver a] | +++ | Good, because [argument a] | | +| [decision driver b] | --- | Good, because [argument b] | +| [decision driver c] | -- | Bad, because [argument c] | +| [decision driver d] | o | Neutral, because [argument d] | + +### [option 3] + +[example | description | pointer to more information | …] + +| Decision Driver | Rating | Reason | +|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------| +| [decision driver a] | +++ | Good, because [argument a] | | +| [decision driver b] | --- | Good, because [argument b] | +| [decision driver c] | -- | Bad, because [argument c] | +| [decision driver d] | o | Neutral, because [argument d] | + +## Related Decision Records + +[previous decision record, e.g., an ADR, which is solved by this one | next decision record, e.g., an ADR, which solves this one | … | pointer to more information] + +## Links + +- [Link type](link to adr) +- …