...
| # | Issue | Notes | Decision | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | should dataspaceName be given another name? | dataspaces are private to an application (e.g. NCMP) they should not be shared kieran mccarthy what do you mean by dataspaceName? | omit for now - put in later if needed/required. | ||||||||
| 2 | should schema urn be generalized, how might it impact publication to ORAN R1? | The schema of the payload is dictated by the source of the event kieran mccarthy what do you refer to here? Ans : the schema refers to 'org.onap'. Emailed ORAN guys to identify how to close the gap between ORAN and ONAP. | Take this discussion separately. | ||||||||
| 3 | should "ncmp" be used rather than "cps" in the type definitions | i.e. org.onap.cps.cmhandle-lcm-event or org.onap.ncmp.cmhandle-lcm-event? NCMP owns these events, 'cps' should not appear (even if cps is emitting them) NCMP java classnames begin with org.onap.cps.ncmp – Tony does not care kieran mccarthy , where does this type come from? | schema urn should refer to ncmp - not cps. | ||||||||
| 4 | should a bulk cmhandle event be supported? | Prefer to delay this decision, but keep it in mind so we do not need to break compatibility to support it. -- Could be tricky as with horizontal scale NCMP, multiple will be emitting simulatneously | leave out of scope for now | ||||||||
| 5 | should we consider the new state model changes on dmi-registry in the event as well? CPS-799 Spike: Define states and state handling for CM handle | For now we have cmhandle-state only in the event payload. But as per the spike(CPS-799) we have some information related to dataSyncState and datastore as well. Should we be extending this payload to add in more information or we will create a separate schema ? OR the schema suggested below is sufficient for the event listener. | Tony Finnerty kieran mccarthy Toine Siebelink we continue to go ahead with the agreed schema only. dataSyncState and datastore related info is anyways related to lifecycle state of cmHandle. | ||||||||
| 6 | should we be introducing a correlationId inside the event payload? | There were few inputs from the team regarding adding a correlationId/cmHandleId inside the event payload itself (so that the event payload becomes self sufficient) and we can use the existing eventCorrelationId for event tracking and can also make it optional. Eg : { "cmHandleId" : "cmhandle-001" , | Tony Finnerty kieran mccarthy Toine Siebelink we will be keeping the eventCorrelationId and putting in cmHandleId based on the eventType , i.e if eventType is org.onap.ncmp.cmhandle-lcm-event then we populate cmHandleId , if not then we can have other id in there (it will be dependent on eventType? ) Also we will add the cmHandleId in the event payload. | ||||||||
| 7 | We agreed to remove the operation field from the NcmpEvent Payload | Now that we agreed to publish the event based on cmHandle state change and not on operation , we will be removing the "operation" field from the event payload. Updated payload should look like this : Eg : { "cmHandleId" : "cmhandle-001" , | This is agreed and implemented as part of
|
, but Toine does.Proposal
| Proposed event for cmhandle LCM |
|---|
{ |
...