Versions Compared

Old Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Catherine Lefevre

Saved on

compared with

New Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Catherine Lefevre

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Sorted inputs - by category

Release Process

  • Self release process had a few hiccups but seems better now → what would we like to fix/improve based on hiccups?
  • gerrit/jenkins/jira/nexus stability issues still occurring sporadicly → link to LFN Infrastructure Initiative (next generation of toolchain) and KaaS Update (TSC Call 12/12). Is there anything else?
  • "one size fits all" relman JIRA tickets.  Should we have different tickets for different projects? Extra effort worthwhile? 

...

Product Creation

  • OOM verify job was very helpful - finding defects before merged into the charts
  • SECCOM TTL for test certificates doesn't impact the security - probably longer than a year
    • → Any input from SECCOM?
  • AAF underestimated the difficulty of changing the service locator
    • Infrastructure changes need to start very early in the release 
    • Plan for backward compatibility up front
    • → to be checked with AAF Team
  • Addition of OJSI Jira has been useful to create more focus on security issues - vulnerabilities are easier to track
    • Nexus vulnerabilities analysis still is very difficult - need some innovation
    • To be checked with SECCOM

Testing Process

  • No overall platform team - not enough people have a picture of the complete platform
  • → the OOM gating and ONAP "Use Case/Requirement" Integration Lead might bring some adding values. Anything else?
  • Off-line installation finding new issues - could be done earlier to find issues
  • → agreed - who will perform these offline installation? can we automate or shall we replace this with OOM Gating?
  • Need to do installation testing in other places than just Windriver to catch environment assumptions
    • Diverse lab test envs (Orange) was helpful
    • Many versions of OpenStack
  • → See previous feedback from El-Alto retrospective
  • Project team engaging in the integration process accelerated the process of integration - zoom shared debug sessions (much faster than jira)
  • Early start of integration testing helps issue resolution earlier than the tail end of the release
  • RC0 attempt to integrate and test was not successful - no CI/CD and a large set of changes integrated at once negatively impacted system stability
  • → Is it something that PTL will invest as part of Frankfurt since limited improvement was made in El-Alto

ONAP Project Oversight

  • POC should not intervene with the ongoing ONAP Release content/timeline i.e. Dublin. POC should not hold the following release i.e. El-Alto
  • Retrospectives best done in person
    •  Suggestion is that we setup 1h per ONAP DDF event?
  • Delay in Dublin - issues not found until the very end
    • Testing started earlier in the release
    • Functional deployments exposed more defects and happen late in the release
      • Intersystem testing should start sooner
      • Instantiate vFW as a step in the CI/CD process - fully automated testing and very stable
    • Requirements came too late in the process
    • Need to begin the testing of Functional requirements earlier
    • Teams need to be transparent into the actual status of the milestones - example: projects marked as code complete were not complete
    • Delay generated by the management of the Casablanca Maintenance Release
  • Lack of available lab resources   
  • Need to start with keystone V3 install in El Alto - installation jobs will be changed (authentication)
  • →Who can tell us the current status? no requirement as part of Frankfurt?