...
- Progress check between M2 and M4 of intermediate development by release manager might help to improve the quality of the final product (for example scheduling the demos of each component to show the current progress at M3 deadline might be right choice too). This avoids any misunderstanding of the features or requirements by the dev team and can receive feedback from the usecase or architecture teams to improve them when there is still time until code freeze.
- Lack of formality to froze model and scope.
• JIRA Management
- Often lack of updated information in "Status" field, that prevent to know if someone is working on a defect. This issue varies depending on project and people.
- Adopt a singe JIRA workflow. Currently 2 are in place (1 from openecomp, 1 simple from openo).
- PTLs are owner of the scope of iteration.
- Review the 2 JIRA workflows and define 1 workflow for ALL.
• Code Review
- Requires active committers and more active code reviewers (right now only few committers or reviewers are always reviewing and merging the code).
...
- The LF toolchain that is currently in place, do allow to merge in master code that has not been thoroughly tested. This leads to massive disruption in the testing.
- Nexus 3 slowness. This has been impacting Integration Team tremendously as it tooks 3-4 more times just to download Docker images.
- Current 1/3 party scan security tool (Nexus IQ) do not work for Python and JavaScript packages and thus prevent the community to have an holistic view on vulnerabilities.
- For the record, it was decided that the community would not account for JavaScript in using Sonar (code coverage) in Beijing Release.
- Slowness of the full IT chain (jenkins, nexus, wiki,..)
- Local testing: how easy to setup an env for a developer to perform its own testing before submitting code. Need reference VNF, AAI, ... (too much time spend to setup environment). Idea of lab reference to be used as a model for configuration. (currently SB-07 serves that purpose).
- Pair wise testing for a great value added in Beijing release.
- 72 hours helps to identify defects. Docker Upgrades went fine.
- Backup and restore capacity for SB 04-07 in Windriver? Have we ever asked Windriver?
- Feature parity on LABS (do not over taxe Windriver).
• PTL Role
- More ONS-NA feedback:
“Either you commit or you forfeit. There really isn’t any middle ground here."
If you can’t attend a meeting, assign a delegate. If you send a delegate more often than you attend, you shouldn’t be a PTL.
PTL-cross PTL discussion: feeling of not involvement in some decision. Having a place for PTLs to speak up.
• Architecture
- Need for simplifying ONAP Micro-Service architecture by leveraging best practices from Industry :
- Certificate enrollment (for Mutual TLS communication among services) in Beijing was manual, time consuming and error prone. Need automation of certificate enrollment is needed.
- Scale-out of ONAP is removed from the scope in Beijing release. Services that attempt do it has some learnings. Scale-Out/Load balancing/Circuit-breaking/DB-sync related functionality should be removed from actual micro services to sidecars/side-kicks to avoid each developer spending time and getting it right.
...