Table of Contents |
---|
See the following:
CPS Team Way-of-Working
A Story/user story is a software system requirement expressed in a few short sentences, using non-technical language. A User Story should express needs from the user's perspective. This can be conveyed in a syntax way like the below illustration
- Jira Stories/Task Tasks are groomed by the team in weekly meeting meetings or on demand as required
User Story Syntax Expression
As a <user> =
who
I want to <be able to
do
ABC> = what
So that <XYZ can be
done
> = why
- The label 'Groomed' will be added when the team agrees there is enough information in the ticket, the scope is clear and acceptance criteria are defined
- Grooming is not compulsory for Jira (sub)tasks (not affecting source code)
- Select the appropriate release/Fix Version the feature is intended for.
- Add user stories to relevant epic
- Backlog should be in priority order.
- Check bugs first, unless specially agreed they always have the highest priority
- Check the next available user story is 'Groomed' and there are no blocking dependencies
- if it not groomed but seems to be next in line, call a quick meeting with PTL and available team members to groom it as soon as is practical
- Check with PTL if story can be taken as there could always be last minute updates or changes that might prioritize a different task
- Inform team about you intention to take user story
- Assign user story to yourself
- Set user story to In progress! (even if starting with some study first)
- If required (typically agreed during grooming) create a Implementation Proposal page here: Implementation Proposals
- You might find a proposal is needed anyway and help you code and share intention for code solution with team and or address specific issues that are discovered during implementation phase
- Implementation Proposals are also good for knowledge sharing with the team and a quick meeting about it might be required depending on the nature of the user story
- Implementation Proposals can also serve as permanent developer documentation and might require further addition e.g. for CPS Exceptions and REST APIs HTTP Response Codes
- Sub task(s) can be created to track the work (especially for larger user stories) and/or delegate but this is optional
- Commit early and frequently
- It is always good to give the team a heads up and share early!
- Ensure all the relevant team developers are added as reviewer , see Team MembersThe WiP typically the work-item owner and at least 2 others, see more details on review process below
- Use the CPS Slack channel to inform the team that a commit is ready for review or re-review once comments have bene implemented
- The WiP (Work in Progress) flag in Gerrit can be used to indicate that review is not ready for review with a fine toothcomb yet but it can also simply be stated in the commit message
- All java code commits should be accompanied with test ware covering the new or modified code (unless agreed by team to handle it in a separate commit in special circumstances)
- Review promptly, none of us like context switching but we cant have developer sitting and waiting for reviews either, try to balance this!
- Use Code Review Checklist : CPS Code Review Check List
- Please review completely ie. it shouldn't be necessary to add more comments on unchanged code after committer as applied your previous comments.
- Please close any resolve commits using 'Done' option. It is up to the commenter to re-open if they don't agree with your solution.
- Depending on the user story a demo might be required before it can be closed
- Demos should be recorded and added to CPS User Story Demos
...
Info |
---|
|
- Submitter should always self-review before submitting to gerrit.onap (use IntelliJ history view or Nodix commit)
- Aspects to review
- Functional/AC -> WIO
- Technical/quality. Anyone should be able to
- not Not all coders need to get involved in all reviews, this could be counter productive
- Ideally about 4 reviewers in total
- Scenario A
- CoderSubmitter
- Work Item owner
- + 2 additional reviewers
- Scenario B
- Coder Submitter = Work Item Owner
- Other Senior developer
- + 2 additional reviewers
- Scenario A
- Ideally about 4 reviewers in total
- Others can view of course , maybe alert blocking issues. But preferably focus on more relvant relevant commit reviews
- See also Committer Best Practices
...
- Copyright included in each file. Apache 2 for coding files.
- The Copyright line for contributing organization inserted or updated reflecting the contribution year.
- A LICENSE.txt file placed at the root of the repo to provide umbrella coverage.
- Unit testing coverage > 90% using Persistence Layer Testing and Groovy & Spock
- We will follow ONAP Recommended Software Development Best Practices: Developer Best Practices
...
- Preferred the agreed point if Contact as per Plan
- WIO can be found in CPS R11 Release Planning
- Agree in Stand-up who can help
JIRA Status Updates
...
Move To | When |
---|---|
In-progress | The moment you start working on it (incl. analysis) |
Submitted | The story/task is ready to be reviewed. |
Delivered | The review is merged, merge & CICD jobs are successful. |
Closed | Documentations are updated. Complete demo to team. |
POM Versioning
...
Drawio | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Major: Update for major changes
- Minor: Update for backwards-incompatible changes
- Patch: Update for new functionality, APIs, & REST endpoints
Steps to follow when bumping version:
- Update all pom files
- set to x.y.z-SNAPSHOT by running mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=<snapshot version>
- Update major, minor, patch, as needed, in version.properties
- Add section in release-notes.rst for next release
- Update commit message (if applicable)