The following items are expected to be completed for the project to Pass the M3 API Freeze Milestone.
M3 Release Architecture Milestone overview is available in wiki.
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
|
| Practice Area | Checkpoint | Yes/No | Evidences | How to? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security | Has the Release Security/Vulnerability table been updated in the protected Security Vulnerabilities wiki space? |
| Yes | /wiki/spaces/SV/pages/16089370 | PTL reviews the NexusIQ scans for their project repos and fills out the vulnerability review table | ||||
| Has the project committed to enabling transport level encryption on all interfaces and the option to turn it off? | Yes* |
|
| Requirements and test cases for transport layer encryption have been created for all interfaces not currently supporting encryption. | |||||||||||
| Has the project documented all open port information? | Yes | HAS, OSDF is documented CMSO has none | Update OOM NodePort List | |||||||||
| Has the project provided the communication policy to OOM and Integration? | Yes | Recommended Protocols | ||||||||||
| Do you have a plan to address by M4 the Critical and High vulnerabilities in the third party libraries used within your project? | Yes |
| ||||||||||
| Architecture | Has the Project team reviewed the APIs with the Architecture Committee (ARC)? | Yes |
| Architecture walk through to understand how each project contributes on Release Use Case. ARC to organize the walk through. | ||||||||
| Is there a plan to address the findings the API review? |
| NA | The plan could be as simple as a Jira issue to track the implementation of findings or a documented plan within the wiki. | ||
| Does the team clearly understand that no changes in the API definition is allowed without formal TSC review and approval? | Yes | In the case some changes are necessary, bring the request to the TSC for review and approval. | |
Is there any changes in the scope, functionalities, deliverable, dependency, resources, API, repositories since M1 milestone? |
| Critical point to understand is that change is inevitable, and that right timing and clear communication to the community will ease the process of accepting changes. | ||||||||||||||
| Provide link to the API Documentation. | Yes | CMSO: CMSO API v1_v2, New CMSO APIs in Dublin HAS: OOF-HAS Homing Specification Guide, Traffic Distribution | ||||||||||||
| Release Management | Are committed Sprint Backlog Stories been marked as "Closed" in Jira board? | Yes. |
| |||||||||||
| Are all tasks associated with Sprint Backlog Stories been marked as "Closed" in Jira? | Yes |
| ||||||||||||
| Have all findings from previous milestones been addressed? | Yes | OSDF code coverage has been bumped up to 65% HAS code coverage has been bumped up to 51%, will meet target 55% by M4. | ||||||||||||
| Development | Is there any pending commit request older than 36 Business hours in Gerrit? | No | Gerrit Query: status:open label:verified -is:draft -label:Code-Review=-1 AND -label:Code-Review=-2 AND is:mergeable age:1week | |||||||||||
| Has the project team reach the Automated Unit Test Code Coverage expectation? (Refer to artifacts available in Sonar) | No | OSDF: 65% HAS: 51% CMSO: Team is currently working towards this. | Guidance on Code Coverage and Static Code Analysis Tools: Sonar | |||||||||||
Are all the Jenkins jobs successfully passed ( Merge-Jobs)? | Yes | https://jenkins.onap.org/view/optf/job/optf-has-master-conductor-merge-java/ https://jenkins.onap.org/view/optf/job/optf-osdf-master-osdf-merge-java/ https://jenkins.onap.org/view/optf/job/optf-cmso-master-merge-properties-java/ | ||||||||||||
| Are all binaries available in Nexus? | Yes | https://nexus.onap.org/content/groups/staging/org/onap/optf/ | ||||||||||||
| Integration and Testing | Have 50% of System Integration Testing Use Cases been implemented successfully in Jenkins? It should include at least 1 CSIT that will be run on Lab-xxx-OOM-Daily Jenkins Job | Yes | CSIT for the has been completed for CMSO, OSDF, HAS https://jenkins.onap.org/view/CSIT/ | |||||||||||
| Has the project code successfully passed the Daily Build process? | Yes | Goal is to ensure the latest project commit has not broken the Integration Daily Build | ||||||||||||
Has the project passed the Integration Sanity Tests? | Yes | Integration sanity tests in Dublin Release cover:
No test failure reported on http://onapci.org/grafana/d/8cGRqBOmz/daily-summary?orgId=1 No Integration Blocking Issue with no workaround: Dublin Release Integration Test Blocking Issues | ||||||||||||
| Modeling | Has the Project team provided links to Data Models (e.g, JSON, YANG, Swagger, etc.) for all Shared Information (e.g., APIs, API Payload, Shared Design Model)? | Partial | API models has been documented in swagger. However, OOF is indirectly consuming service and data models, especially for the service instantiation workflows, either directly (by querying AAI, MultiCloud) or indirectly (Policy, SO). Components like OSDF and HAS captures this information in their internal models that may have different terminologies -
CMSO: CM Ticket Management API Swagger Change Management (CM) Schedule Optimizer API Swagger HAS: OSDF: | It is a non-blocking item for M3 - The Modeling team is gathering information |