Constraining Detailed Architecture Usage in Patterns

[jpgough-ms]

Feature Request

Description of Problem:

detailed-architecture provides a "drill down" feature in CALM. A node can provide a detailed architecture link, which corresponds to another CALM architecture with more details of a node.

When using the detailed-architecture feature in patterns, it would be helpful to constrain the detailed-architecture to a specific pattern.

Potential Solutions:

One solution is to provide an optional detailed-pattern or detailed-architecture-pattern, this would constrain the downstream architecture and enable the architect to define any input and output nodes or relationships relevant to the pattern.

It would also enable the downstream pattern to constrain the downstream architecture where necessary and have that also conform to a pattern.

[jpgough-ms]

Changing node to have something like

"details": {
          "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "detailed-architecture": {
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "detailed-pattern": {
                  "type": "string"
                }
            }
        }

Could work really well with patterns.

• It enables a pattern author to say you must provide a detailed-architecture where on is needed.
• It can be constrained to point at a specific detailed architecture (for known systems that have a well established set of components and controls)
• It can be used to say you must provide a detailed architecture and it is constrained by this pattern

cc/ @Budlee @rocketstack-matt

[rocketstack-matt]

Would the name reference-pattern or required-pattern be more appropriate in terms of intent?

[jpgough-ms]

@rocketstack-matt that is definitely better.

[Budlee]

The required-pattern is a nice add here and I believe should resolve what we require

[Budlee]

@rocketstack-matt is this going to be in the new draft?