...
| # | Issue | Notes/Jira | Decision | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | What topic to use for client? | Topic provided by client as a parameter which will be injected into our environment and used for asynchronous requests sent back to client. | To be supplied by cient | ||||||||
| 2 | What topic to use for private DMI-NCMP? | e.g. ncmp-async-private but decision needs to be made with current best practices. | |||||||||
| 3 | Are adding a new REST endpoint for async or modifying an existing endpoint? | To facilitate asynchronous requests to DMI we will need to either create a new endpoint or modify existing endpoint to include /async flag. The second solution may not be backwards compatible. However creating a new endpoint solely for a flag is also not ideal. We could add async to list of options (but this might interfere with the purpose of /options. Additionally, considered adding a new endpoint for async which simply re-routes the response to the original endpoint while adding the logic for OK response to the client. However, would this lead to a change in the schema? If so, would this be backwards compatible?
| /ncmp/v1/data/ch/123ee5/ds/ncmp-datastore:*?topic=<topic-name> | ||||||||
| 4 | Agree URL for async once #2 is clarified | CPS R10 Release Planning#NCMPRequirements #11. Based on this additional path parameter we no longer require additional /async flag in url. | /ncmp/v1/data/ch/123ee5/ds/ncmp-datastore:*?topic=<topic-name> | ||||||||
| 5 | Passthrough request need to be able to handle different response types (using accept header) but the async option would have a fixed and possibly different response type. | CPS R10 Release Planning#NCMPRequirements #11. | We should, by default, be able to accept multiple contnet-types. | ||||||||
| 6 | Should we create a standalone app to demo or are tests sufficient? | CSIT tests may require more involved effort - perhaps we could add standalone app to nexus and use it as part of CSIT test? | see #13 | ||||||||
| 7 | Do we need to persist the generated requestID? | We should be be stateless | No | ||||||||
| 8 | Error Reporting | Out of scope | |||||||||
| 9 | Async Request Option using Messaging | See: AsyncRequestOptionusingMessaging | Out of scope | ||||||||
| 10 | Do we actually require futures in this implementation proposal? | It could be argued that the need for futures is made redundant by the fact we call dmi from ncmp through rest and the response will be consumed via Kafka. What benefit would future give us in this case? | Not needed | ||||||||
| 11 | ID Generation | Which mechanism to use? Look at CPS-Temporal and follow to keep consistency | |||||||||
| 12 | Are there any Kafka specific environment variables or config variables to be set for this work? | We will need to add new topic for DMI → NCMP M2M Kafka - which file(s)? | |||||||||
| 13 | Can robot framework verify if Kafka events have been sent/received | This would be less work and overhead (rather than creating/.maintaining client app) | |||||||||
| 14 | Can Webflux do this work with less code/impl? | ||||||||||
| 15 | ONAP may be deprecating PALINTEXT for Kafka. Strimzi Kafka might need to be used |
...