There are 2 gaps here, at least as they relate to my understanding of what "canaries" are (based on experience):
1. Requiring manual validation of canary results is antithetical to CI/CD principles. If you can't trust your canaries enough to automatically promote or block based on results, doing manual validation is just a band-aid that will have to be ripped off painfully eventually.
2. Canaries should run continuously against all deployment stages, not just as a one-time approval process in your pipeline. Good canaries give visibility into baseline metrics at all times, not just when validating a new application version.
Overall I would say this guide aligns more with what I would term as a non-CI/CD load-test approval workflow rather than a "canary".
1. Requiring manual validation of canary results is antithetical to CI/CD principles. If you can't trust your canaries enough to automatically promote or block based on results, doing manual validation is just a band-aid that will have to be ripped off painfully eventually.
2. Canaries should run continuously against all deployment stages, not just as a one-time approval process in your pipeline. Good canaries give visibility into baseline metrics at all times, not just when validating a new application version.
Overall I would say this guide aligns more with what I would term as a non-CI/CD load-test approval workflow rather than a "canary".