Ocata: Assessment for networking-sfc
Change-Id: Ie43abf951449c9510ddd5cc16a87f1e942e26cba
This commit is contained in:
Armando Migliaccio
parent
b5054dc9b7
commit
b07e74b831
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
|
|||
..
|
||||
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
||||
License.
|
||||
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
|
||||
========================
|
||||
Networking-sfc Scorecard
|
||||
========================
|
||||
|
||||
Neutron integration
|
||||
-------------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N0:
|
||||
|
||||
* N0. Does the project use the Neutron REST API or relies on proprietary backends?
|
||||
|
||||
Networking-sfc implements its own set of Neutron API extensions on top of
|
||||
the Neutron core framework and it does so by using the service plugin model,
|
||||
The API exposed has open source implementations, and it provides a pluggable
|
||||
driver mechanism for multiple backends.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N1:
|
||||
|
||||
* N1. Does the project integrate/use neutron-lib?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. It only imports ~10% of the neutron-related imports required. There is no
|
||||
periodic job to test against neutron-lib master changes.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N2:
|
||||
|
||||
* N2. Do project members actively contribute to help neutron-lib achieve its
|
||||
goal?
|
||||
|
||||
No, there is no tangible evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N3:
|
||||
|
||||
* N3. Do project members collaborate with the core team to enable subprojects
|
||||
to loosely integrate with the Neutron core platform by helping with the definition
|
||||
of modular interfaces?
|
||||
|
||||
Team members helped review some of the L2 extensions related specs and patches.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N4:
|
||||
|
||||
* N4. How does the project provide networking services? Does it use modular interfaces
|
||||
as provided by the core platform?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, only recently the team managed to kill the OVS agent fork they were relying on.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351789/
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N5:
|
||||
|
||||
* N5. If the project provides new API extensions, have API extensions been discussed
|
||||
and accepted by the Neutron drivers team? Please provide links to API specs, if
|
||||
required.
|
||||
|
||||
The project currently exposes two APIs: flow classification and Port chaining both
|
||||
via two separate service plugins. Minimal oversight on the latter was provided by
|
||||
the Neutron team at the project inception.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation
|
||||
-------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _D1:
|
||||
|
||||
* D1. Does the project have a doc tox target, functional and continuously
|
||||
working? Provide proof (links to logs.openstack.org).
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* http://docs.openstack.org/developer/networking-sfc/
|
||||
|
||||
.. _D2:
|
||||
|
||||
* D2. If the project provide API extensions, does the project have an
|
||||
api-ref tox target, functional and continously working? Provide proof
|
||||
(links to logs.openstack.org).
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://github.com/openstack/networking-sfc/blob/master/tox.ini#L136
|
||||
|
||||
.. _D3:
|
||||
|
||||
* D3. Does the project have a releasenotes tox target, functional and
|
||||
continously working? Provide proof.
|
||||
|
||||
No.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _D4:
|
||||
|
||||
* D4. Describe the types of documentation available: developer, end user,
|
||||
administrator, deployer.
|
||||
|
||||
There is some developer documentation (in the form of design documents),
|
||||
deployment documentation, and some user documentation in the form of a
|
||||
list of client side extensions. Some material is available on the
|
||||
wiki.o.o, which ideally would be migrated over and put under version control.
|
||||
|
||||
* http://docs.openstack.org/developer/networking-sfc/
|
||||
* http://docs.openstack.org/newton/networking-guide/config-sfc.html
|
||||
|
||||
Continuous Integration
|
||||
----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C1:
|
||||
|
||||
* C1. Does the project have a Grafana dashboard showing historical trends of
|
||||
all the jobs available? Provide proof (links to grafana.openstack.org).
|
||||
|
||||
No.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://review.openstack.org/#/c/386081/
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C2:
|
||||
|
||||
* C2. Does the project have CI for unit coverage? Provide proof (links to
|
||||
logs.openstack.org)
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* http://status.openstack.org/openstack-health/#/g/project/openstack~2Fnetworking-sfc
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C3:
|
||||
|
||||
* C3. Does the project have CI for functional coverage? If so, does it include
|
||||
DB migration and sync validation?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. DB migration and sync validation introduced recently.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://review.openstack.org/#/c/354359/
|
||||
* http://logs.openstack.org/59/354359/3/check/gate-networking-sfc-python35-db/cf7dd20/testr_results.html.gz
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C4:
|
||||
|
||||
* C4. Does the project have CI for fullstack coverage?
|
||||
|
||||
No.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C5:
|
||||
|
||||
* C5. Does the project have CI for Tempest coverage? If so, specify nature
|
||||
(API and/or Scenario).
|
||||
|
||||
API and Scenario. Non voting.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C6:
|
||||
|
||||
* C6. How does a project validates upgrades on a continuous basis? Does
|
||||
the project require or support CI for Grenade coverage?
|
||||
|
||||
No upgrade testing on a continuous basis.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C7:
|
||||
|
||||
* C7. Does the project provide multinode CI?
|
||||
|
||||
No.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C8:
|
||||
|
||||
* C8. Does the project support Python 3.x? Provide proof.
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* http://logs.openstack.org/38/376538/3/check/gate-networking-sfc-python35-db/c05fa62/
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Release footprint
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _R1:
|
||||
|
||||
* R1. Does the project adopt semver?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _R2:
|
||||
|
||||
* R2. Does the project have release deliverables? Provide proof as available
|
||||
in the `release repo <http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/releases/tree/>`_.
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/releases/tree/deliverables/_independent/networking-sfc.yaml
|
||||
|
||||
.. _R3:
|
||||
|
||||
* R3. Does the project use upper-constraints?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://github.com/openstack/networking-sfc/blob/master/tox.ini#L10
|
||||
|
||||
.. _R4:
|
||||
|
||||
* Does the project integrate with OpenStack Proposal Bot for requirements updates?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://github.com/openstack/requirements/commit/2afcaea9a8c0363173f215c2316b59985a981d0e
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Stable backports
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _S1:
|
||||
|
||||
* S1. Does the project have stable branches and/or tags? Provide history of
|
||||
backports.
|
||||
|
||||
Liberty and Mitaka available. Backports are under the control of the neutron
|
||||
stable team. The subproject follows some release cadence that is not in sync
|
||||
with neutron, and this must be rectified, ASAP.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Client library
|
||||
--------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _L1:
|
||||
|
||||
* L1. If the project requires a client library, how does it implement CLI and
|
||||
API bindings?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. No OSC transition yet.
|
||||
|
||||
Scorecard
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| Scorecard |
|
||||
+===============+
|
||||
| N0_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N1_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N2_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N3_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N4_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N5_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| D1_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| D2_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| D3_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| D4_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C1_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C2_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C3_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C4_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C5_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C6_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C7_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C8_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| R1_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| R2_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| R3_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| R4_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| S1_ | Y |
|
||||
+-----+---------+
|
||||
| L1_ | N |
|
||||
+-----+---------+
|
||||
|
||||
Final remarks: the subproject has made great progress lately. There are still
|
||||
gaps to be filled, like lack of exhaustive coverage in the gate queue (current
|
||||
tempest test is non-voting), and aligning with master. Client side extensions
|
||||
will need to be rewritten in due course. However the subproject does not seem
|
||||
to lack the resources and the focus to make timely progress when required.
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue