| Project Name | Enter the name of the project |
|---|---|
| Target Release Name | Dublin |
| Project Lifecycle State | Incubation |
| Participating Company | ARM, Orange, Amdocs, Huawei |
Scope
What is this release trying to address?
During the Dublin Release, CIA will put in practice the best practices and principles identified and validated during Casablanca.
By applying such best practices the project aims at alleviating two ONAP pain points
1. High resource consumption due to large large container images
2. Long build and deploy times due to large container images
3. The inability to run ONAP on more than one hardware platform (cpu architecture) and cloud infrastructure
Use Cases
This release is targeting ONAP's Minimal Environment and, as a stretch goal, the vFW use case.
Minimum Viable Product
The MVP for this release will be delivered in an incremental and iterative approach.
The work will be approached in phases:
Phase 1: Minimize the footprint of container images used on ONAP Minimal Environment
Phase 2: Build platform-agnostic container images (i.e. multi-cpu architecture support) for ONAP minimal environment
Phase 3: Minimize the footprint of container images used on the vFW use case.
Phase 4: Build platform-agnostic container images (i.e. multi-cpu architecture support) for vFW use case.
Phase 5: Review Dockerfiles for the vFW use case, identify patterns and propose re-usable Dockerfile templates.
Functionalities
List the functionalities that this release is committing to deliver by providing a link to JIRA Epics and Stories. In the JIRA Priority field, specify the priority (either High, Medium, Low). The priority will be used in case de-scoping is required. Don't assign High priority to all functionalities.
Stories
Longer term roadmap
Working on the vFW use case will provide the foundation for the optimization of the entire onap container base.
The lessons learned during Casablanca will be put to use and refined during this release.
The next logical step is to expand, on futures releases, the containers and use cases that can benefit from producing efficient vendor-agnostic container images.
Release Deliverables
Indicate the outcome (Executable, Source Code, Library, API description, Tool, Documentation, Release Note...) of this release.
| Deliverable Name | Deliverable Description |
|---|---|
| Source code | Contributions in the form of: -modifications to the Dockerfile that generate container images. -modifications to Maven Docker plugin files -when appropriate, modifications to the build process |
Architecture
High level architecture diagram
Changes introduced to the code base by this project, as described above, fit within the ONAP architecture diagram.
Platform Maturity
Refering to CII Badging Security Program and Platform Maturity Requirements, fill out the table below by indicating the actual level , the targeted level for the current release and the evidences on how you plan to achieve the targeted level.
| Area | Actual Level | Targeted Level for current Release | How, Evidences | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manageability | Depends on each project and container image. | Level 2. | Container images show reduction in size. |
|
API Incoming Dependencies
No API dependencies are expected.
API Outgoing Dependencies
No API dependencies are expected and this project does not deliver APIs to other projects.
Third Party Products Dependencies
| Name | Description | Version |
|---|---|---|
| Docker | Docker engine | Linux/Intel version that supports docker manifest Linux/aarch64 version that supports docker manifest |
| Docker | Docker registry | Version that supports fat manifest. Current version of the ONAP registry has been reported to lack support for fat manifests. |
| Alpine | Alpine Linux | Latest version |
Testing Strategies
Background
A container image is just another software packaging format (typically a bunch of compressed tar files). Base images offer just the foundation and they are immutable and sealed.
For those reasons, changing the base image doesn't change the logic of the service it delivers and doesn't require any special kind of tests.
Migrating containers to different base image does not affect functional testing
The same test method and tools you use today will work with the new container you run from a smaller base image.
Testing each service:
a) in isolation - running unit test and
b) running service tests (or API contract tests) and
c) using point-to-point integration tests (pairwise)
will continue to use the same test artifacts you use today.
Why? mainly because you are running containers in Linux now and you will continue to run containers in Linux after.
Roles and Responsibilities
Testing Phase | CIA Project Contributors | Project Team | Integration Team |
|---|---|---|---|
Image structure check | Verify that:
| ||
Container Sanity check | Verify that
| ||
| Unit testing | Verify that
When available:
This testing is independent of the base image used to build the container. | ||
Integration testing |
The Integration team is not concerned with whether an image is based on Alpine, Ubuntu or something else. This testing is independent of the base image used to build the container. | ||
Contract (Pairwise) testing | Pairwise testing will proceed according to current best practices under the guidance of the project teams or the Integration team. This testing is independent of the base image used to build the container. Note: CIA contributors would help resolve issues that are demonstrably caused by the new base image. | ||
Gaps
This section is used to document a limitation on a functionality or platform support. We are currently aware of this limitation and it will be delivered in a future Release.
List identified release gaps (if any), and its impact.
| Gaps identified | Impact |
|---|---|
| ONAP Docker registry does not support manifest lists. | Multi-cpu architecture images can't be pushed to the ONAP registry. |
| LF arm-based build process/servers is work in progress. | Multi-cpu architecture images can't be built and delivered. |
Risks
List the risks identified for this release along with the plan to prevent the risk to occur (mitigation) and the plan of action in the case the risk would materialized (contingency).
| Risk identified | Mitigation Plan | Contingency Plan |
|---|---|---|
ONAP Docker registry does not support manifest lists. | Request an upgrade to the registry server to the LF team. | Use an alternative Docker registry server that supports manifest lists. |
Contributors are not committers and can't control modifications to the code base. | Meet project teams, make them aware of: -the S3P requirements -the contributions CIA is expected to bring -discuss testing options and artifacts -seek their buy in and collaboration | TBD |
Resources
Fill out the Resources Committed to the Release centralized page.
Release Milestone
The milestones are defined at the Release Level and all the supporting project agreed to comply with these dates.
Documentation, Training
- The team maintains documentation and guidelines on the their wiki page.
Other Information
Vendor Neutral
The project contributions are predicated on the need to make ONAP vendor-neutral.
Free and Open Source Software
Each project will edit its project table available at Project FOSS.
Charter Compliance
The project team comply with the ONAP Charter.l