WIP - Michael O'Brien
see TSC-25 - Getting issue details... STATUS
This is a potential draft of a project proposal template. It is not final or to be used until the TSC approves it.
Link to Project Proposal training materials
Project Name:
- Proposed name for the project:
cd
Project description:
- Provide high level description of intended project and intended use case(s) and benefit, if needed.
- Requirements
- Deployment run on every or batch of commits
- Access to failed healtcheck results
- Access to failed container results "kubectl get pods --all-namespaces | grep -E '0/|1/2' - like http://jenkins.onap.info/job/oom-cd-master/3496/console
Scope:
- Describe the functionality to be provided by the project. Please provide the full intended scope of the project; not just what is intended for the project's first release.
- Specify any interface/API specification proposed,
- Identity a list of features and functionality will be developed.
- Identify what is in or out of scope. During the development phase, it helps reduce discussion.
Architecture Alignment:
- How does this project fit into the rest of the ONAP Architecture?
- Please Include architecture diagram if possible
- What other ONAP projects does this project depend on?
- How does this align with external standards/specifications?
- APIs/Interfaces
- Information/data models
- Are there dependencies with other open source projects?
- APIs/Interfaces
- Integration Testing
- etc.
Other Information:
- link to seed code (if applicable)
- Vendor Neutral
- if the proposal is coming from an existing proprietary codebase, have you ensured that all proprietary trademarks, logos, product names, etc., have been removed?
- Meets Board policy (including IPR)
Use the above information to create a key project facts section on your project page
Key Project Facts:
Facts | Info |
|---|---|
| PTL (first and last name) | |
| Jira Project Name | Continuous Delivery |
| Jira Key | CD |
| Project ID | CD |
| Link to Wiki Space |
Release Components Name:
Note: refer to existing project for details on how to fill out this table
Components Name | Components Repository name | Maven Group ID | Components Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| org.onap.cd | |||
Resources committed to the Release:
Note 1: No more than 5 committers per project. Balance the committers list and avoid members representing only one company. Ensure there is at least 3 companies supporting your proposal.
Note 2: It is critical to complete all the information requested, that will help to fast forward the onboarding process.
Role | First Name Last Name | Linux Foundation ID | Email Address | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTL | ||||
| Committers | ||||
| Contributors | ||||
Meeting Minutes
20190124
zoom_0_20190124_tsc-25_meeting.mp4
| 20190124 |
|---|
By request of Dublin Scorecard - https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/topic/dublin_m1_scorecard_tsc/29536574?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fsticky,,,20,2,0,29536574 Alexis de Talhouët is welcome as TSC management - his deep technical "hands-on" approach will be appreciated Attendees/Participants Kenny Paul Meeting Minutes: 20190124
around sudo helm deploy local/onap --namespace onap -f onap/resources/environments/disable-allcharts.yaml --set so.enabled=true server
|
20190131 - Orange CD demo from Sylvain Desbureaux
20190131_cd_tsc-25-meet_with_Orange_Sylvain_Desbureaux_demo.mp4
20190131 agenda
Notes
Currently Manual kubectl get pods --all-namespaces and oom/kubernetes/robot$ sudo ./ete-k8s.sh onap health |
20190207
TSC-25 - Getting issue details... STATUS
20190207 Agenda
- propose reduce meets to every 2 weeks as Orange/LF collaboration is already done daily
send out vote on meetings every 2 weeks to LF
update video from last week - also open discussion on goals of this task force as it has been on since Mid Oct - RC0
- Review status of Phases for this CD task force
phase 1: is essentially met - pending details on -1/0/+1 known issues with branch deployment/stability general to ONAP - Review running Orange gerritt bot for OOM repo merges
example https://gerrit.onap.org/r/#/c/78009/ - review manifest vs oom docker tag truth - discussions/mails here and TSC-86
- review LF infrastructure changes
q) on timing - work on profiles of dependencies
q) chart ownership - in queue - empty repos only for now J
example
https://git.onap.org/aaf/oom/tree/
optional for this release
- mechanism is symlink just like the docs directory in each project -
- discuss with Mike Elliott
Attendees
5 Comments
Michael O'Brien
new record for the aws system (only SO and vnfsdk)
http://jenkins.onap.info/job/oom-cd-master/2971/consoleFull
41/43
ahead of tlab temporarily at 36/43 - but both systems still have intermittent failures
https://jenkins.onap.org/view/External%20Labs/job/lab-tlab-beijing-oom-deploy/320/console
Brian Freeman
I was thinking of how to do a verify job based test of code with an "instantiateVFW" E2E test.
Would simply replacing the docker container for a project with the verify job docker for the component to test be a faster verify.
Build verify up through a docker image tagged projectA-container[A-Z]-verify-20181015T113454Z
Use oom to do a image upgrade of projectA with the verify containers - the rest of ONAP stays on the staging/release containers as appropriate
run health (must pass on old and new containers)
run instantiateVFW (must pass - potential for openstack spurious issues)
restore original docker images for ProjectA with staging/release that were there before.
I think this would be faster than a complete re-install ?
Michael O'Brien
work with https://docs.opnfv.org/en/latest/submodules/releng-xci/docs/xci-overview.html#xci-overview
Michael O'Brien
azure cd cluster
Michael O'Brien