1 Analysis content

Mainly focus on the TOSCA types currently included and used in SDC which can be found in https://gerrit.onap.org/r/gitweb?p=sdc.git;a=tree;f=catalog-be/src/main/resources/import/tosca;hb=refs/heads/master, except the heat-types (directory)

...

Child pages (Children Display)

all	true

2 Analysis Result

According to the analysis results, the model problems found can be summarized into four categories：

A : Not comply with tosca grammar
This classification is used to record types that don't comply with the basic tosca syntax specification
B1: Not comply with existing TOSCA-simple-YAML-1.2
B2: Not comply with existing SOL001-v2.5.1
Type definitions quite like the types which defined in specification, but still have some difference， such as base type difference, property difference, etc
C: SDC private extension
This classification is used to record SDC private extension
D: Use Case private extension
This classification is used to record the extension types which used to support specific use case

2.1 Analysis Statistics and Suggestion

Class

Type Number which belongs to this class

The Issue Example

Suggestion

A

3

Code Block

language	yml
title	SDC
collapse	true

org.openecomp.annotations.Source:
    description: Indicates the origin source of an input
    properties:
        source_type:
          type: string
        vf_module_label:
          type: list
          description: List of VF Modules this input was originated from
          entry_schema:
            type: string
        param_name:
            type: string
            description: Source parameter name

Missing derived_from in the definition

Fix it to align with the correct TOSCA grammar

B

58

B1 14

B1 issue example:

B1 Fix it to align with the TOSCA spec

B2: 44

B2 issue example:

Fix it to align with the SOL001 spec

C

90

Grammar is complied with TOSCA spec, but defined by SDC only, those are not included in TOSCA spec or SOL001 spec.

Which types have to be kept ?
Which types can be replaced by the TOSCA normative types as defined in tosca-simple-profile-yaml or NFV types as defined in SOL001, or the types as defined in the target internal DM (ONAP Target Internal DM (TIDM), Base Proposal)

D

17

Grammar is complied with TOSCA spec, but defined and used by SDC for a specific use case or vendor, those are not included in TOSCA spec or SOL001 spec.

Which types have to be kept ?
Which types can be replaced by the TOSCA normative types as defined in tosca-simple-profile-yaml or NFV types as defined in SOL001

2.2 Options to fix the above issues

Option	Description
Option1	Fix A and B (including B1 and B2) in Dublin release
Option2	Fix all the issues (A, B, C and D) in Dublin release
Option3	Keep it without any fix, and only correct them when designing the new target internal DM (TIDM): The rules for designing TIDM have to be considered and decided in Dublin release, e.g., Issue A and B1 have to be avoid B2 should align with the SOL001 spec C should be obsoleted and replaced by TIDM or other on-boarding DM (e.g. SOL001) D should be obsoleted and replaced by TIDM or other on-boarding DM (e.g. SOL001) Other rules? Provide guidance and suggestion for the related projects about using which TOSCA parser (SDC TOSCA Parser or NFV Parser).
Option4	..

........

R3 CSAR which exported by SDC in CCVPN use case and CPE use case

vCPE：

...

.

...

View file

name	resource-VcpeInfrastructureDemoApp-csar.csar
height	250

View file

name	resource-VcpeInfrastructureGwDemoApp-csar.csar
height	250

View file

name	resource-VcpeInfrastructureMetroVbngDemoApp-csar.csar
height	250

...

.

...

.

...

.

...

CCVPN:

...

.

...

.

...

.

...

.

...

Versions Compared

Old Version 26

New Version 27

Key

1 Analysis content

2 Analysis Result

2.1 Analysis Statistics and Suggestion

2.2 Options to fix the above issues

Page Comparison

Versions Compared

Old Version 26

New Version 27

Key

1 Analysis content

2 Analysis Result

2.1 Analysis Statistics and Suggestion

2.2 Options to fix the above issues