| Table of Contents |
|---|
References
Jira Legacy server System Jira columnIds issuekey,summary,issuetype,created,updated,duedate,assignee,reporter,priority,status,resolution columns key,summary,type,created,updated,due,assignee,reporter,priority,status,resolution serverId 4733707d-2057-3a0f-ae5e-4fd8aff50176 key CPS-1104 - CPS-858 Define Notifications on CM Handle Add (Ready) & Delete
Issues & Decisions
...
| # | Issue | Notes | Decisions |
|---|
Overview
This page is for deciding the structure of the proposed "detail" section which needs to be introduced in the NcmpEvent payload.
| 1 | Use "Generic" Detail-fields or or more specific fields | kieran mccarthy prefer to use specific terms like 'orginalState' instead of generic 'details' | ||
| 2 | how many event schema's for different events will there be? | e.g. 1 schema for state change, 1 other schema for public properties? | Need to discuss with kieran mccarthy One single schema for all cmhandle LCM events : org.onap.ncmp:cmhandle-lcm-event:v1 | |
| 3 | what is the best term to use for change events 'original', 'previous' or something else | Team found term 'original' confusing and prefers 'previous' e.g. previousState | use 'oldValues' and 'newValues'. See analysis below. | |
| 4 | Should public properties be part of (same) structure as state | Team feels state and properties are very different and should not be combined into same structure This also depends on open issue #2 | Agreed at team meeting that all cmhandle metadata attributes to be managed in the same manner whether that is state or properties. | |
| 5 | Should the schema version be separate from 'eventSchema'? | The event schema is defined like this : org.onap.ncmp:cmhandle-lcm-event:v1 where version is at the end of the schema string. It would be better to split the schema version into its own header field. e.g. ”eventSchema” : “org.onap.ncmp:cmhandle-lcm-event", | Toine Siebelink Can we split the schema version into its own field or is it a standard way to reference schema versions like the way CPS do it for their events (at least I think this is what they do?) like this : 'org.onap.ncmp:cmhandle-lcm-event:v1'
//priyank : Agreed to use the specified format in the notes in LCM Schema and also create a user story to handle the async schema on similar grounds. | |
| 6 | Mentioning the mandatory and optional fields in our schemas. | Mandatory(M) and Optional(O) Schema Sample :
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
"cmHandleId" : "cmhandle-001",
“cmhandle-properties” : [
{“public-property-name-1” : “public-property-value-1”},
{“public-property-name-2” : “public-property-value-2”}
]
}
}
Proposed Schema
...
| kieran mccarthy Please correct if something is wrong. [kieran] This looks good - the given eventSource may change but the format is fine. | |||||||
| 7 | Agree on the topic name where the events need to be published. | Previously we configured the topic name as "ncmp-events" , but since now we are calling these events as LcmEvents , I was wondering if the topic should reflect the same. Toine Siebelink suggested "ncmp-lcm-events" as an alternative name. | kieran mccarthy Tony Finnerty your thoughts on this ? Priyank Maheshwari There is no reason to separate cm data events from these lcm events. They are all ncmp events and the consumer may determine the nature of the event from eventType/eventSchema. Sugegst to send them on ncmp-events topic. | |||||
| 8 | How will the DELETING event look like ? It should be same as UPDATE event or some other handling is needed? |
| //priyank It will behave the same as update event. we discussed and clarified. Priyank Maheshwari The cmhandle LOCKED state should also be reflected in the event on the left (but ONLY if cmhandle LOCKED support is already implemented) |
Overview
This page is for deciding the structure of the proposed "detail" section which needs to be introduced in the NcmpEvent payload.
Refer : CPS-858 Define Notifications on CM Handle Add (Ready) & Delete #8
Purpose : Additional field(s) to store information about the previous state.
Current Schema
| Code Block | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
{ "eventId" : "00001", "eventCorrelationId : "cmhandle-001", "eventTime" : "2021-11-16T16:42:25-04:00", |
...
"eventSource" : "org.onap.ncmp", |
...
"eventType" : "org.onap.ncmp.cmhandle-lcm-event", |
...
”eventSchema” : “org.onap.ncmp:cmhandle-lcm-event:v1", |
...
"event": |
...
{ “cmHandleState” : “READY”, "cmHandleId" : "cmhandle-001", |
...
...
“cmhandle-properties” : [ |
...
{“public-property-name-1” : “public-property-value-1”}, |
...
{“public-property-name-2” : “public-property-value-2”} |
...
] |
...
}
} |
Proposed events
| Excerpt | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
"cmHandleId" : "cmhandle-001",
“cmhandle-properties” : [
{“public-property-name-1” : “public-property-value-1”},
{“public-property-name-2” : “public-property-value-2”}
]
}
}
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|