Ocata: Assessment for networking-l2gw
Change-Id: Ibe5f167d2d54415d2cdd672a22c4c52793035ebe
This commit is contained in:
Armando Migliaccio
290
specs/stadium/ocata/networking-l2gw.rst
Normal file
290
specs/stadium/ocata/networking-l2gw.rst
Normal file
@@ -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-l2gw Scorecard
|
||||
=========================
|
||||
|
||||
Neutron integration
|
||||
-------------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N0:
|
||||
|
||||
* N0. Does the project use the Neutron REST API or relies on proprietary backends?
|
||||
|
||||
Networking-l2gw 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
|
||||
mechanism for proprietary backends.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N1:
|
||||
|
||||
* N1. Does the project integrate/use neutron-lib?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. The migration report shows that there are currently ~450 total imports.
|
||||
Neutron is imported ~100 times and Neutron-lib only ~10 times, for a migration
|
||||
percentage of 11.2000%. No periodic job against neutron-lib seems available.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N2:
|
||||
|
||||
* N2. Do project members actively contribute to help neutron-lib achieve its
|
||||
goal?
|
||||
|
||||
None of the project core members have merged anything meaningful into neutron-lib
|
||||
(source: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/neutron-lib+status:merged,75).
|
||||
|
||||
.. _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?
|
||||
|
||||
Not particularly.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _N4:
|
||||
|
||||
* N4. How does the project provide networking services? Does it use modular interfaces
|
||||
as provided by the core platform?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _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.
|
||||
|
||||
Not exactly. The project was one of the initial projects created during the early
|
||||
days of the Big Tent and Neutron decomposition. The API was accepted/approved by
|
||||
a smaller group of people who wanted to make progress on a topic that was largely
|
||||
stalled due to lack of community consensus.
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation
|
||||
-------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _D1:
|
||||
|
||||
* D1. Does the project have a doc tox target, functional and continuously
|
||||
working? Provide proof (links to logs.openstack.org).
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://github.com/openstack/networking-l2gw/blob/master/tox.ini
|
||||
|
||||
.. _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).
|
||||
|
||||
There is no API reference published, though the API is detailed in
|
||||
its spec document.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openstack/networking-l2gw/master/specs/kilo/l2-gateway-api.rst
|
||||
|
||||
.. _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 not a lot of documentation available.
|
||||
|
||||
* http://docs.openstack.org/developer/networking-l2gw/
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _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-l2gw
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C3:
|
||||
|
||||
* C3. Does the project have CI for functional coverage? If so, does it include
|
||||
DB migration and sync validation?
|
||||
|
||||
No. but DB migration and sync validation is provided by its unit job.
|
||||
|
||||
* http://logs.openstack.org/99/380899/1/gate/gate-networking-l2gw-python35-db/f3af348/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).
|
||||
|
||||
Latest Bot proposal shows only unit validation. Even though the project has
|
||||
API and scenario tests they are exercised with downstream CI because of lack
|
||||
of an pure software implementation of L2GW services.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357703/
|
||||
|
||||
.. _C6:
|
||||
|
||||
* C6. How does a project validate upgrades on a continuous basis? Does
|
||||
the project require or support CI for Grenade coverage?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. But it has none.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _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/03/357703/7/gate/gate-networking-l2gw-python35-db/b834ee7/testr_results.html.gz
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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, the release is responsibility of the neutron-release team.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _R3:
|
||||
|
||||
* R3. Does the project use upper-constraints?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://github.com/openstack/networking-l2gw/blob/master/tox.ini#L10
|
||||
|
||||
.. _R4:
|
||||
|
||||
* Does the project integrate with OpenStack Proposal Bot for requirements updates?
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://github.com/openstack/requirements/commit/574736a84b9218e1d7ea860f82cb248975b7c1ca
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Stable backports
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _S1:
|
||||
|
||||
* S1. Does the project have stable branches and/or tags? Provide history of
|
||||
backports.
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, stable maintainance is responsibility of the neutron-stable team.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Client library
|
||||
--------------
|
||||
|
||||
.. _L1:
|
||||
|
||||
* L1. If the project requires a client library, how does it implement CLI and
|
||||
API bindings?
|
||||
|
||||
There are Neutron CLI extensions but they have not been ported over to OSC.
|
||||
|
||||
* https://github.com/openstack/networking-l2gw/tree/master/networking_l2gw/l2gatewayclient
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Scorecard
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| Scorecard |
|
||||
+===============+
|
||||
| N0_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N1_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N2_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N3_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N4_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| N5_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| D1_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| D2_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| D3_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| D4_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C1_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C2_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C3_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C4_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C5_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C6_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C7_ | N |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| C8_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| R1_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| R2_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| R3_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| R4_ | Y |
|
||||
+---------------+
|
||||
| S1_ | Y |
|
||||
+-----+---------+
|
||||
| L1_ | N |
|
||||
+-----+---------+
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Final remarks
|
||||
-------------
|
||||
|
||||
Closing the gap on all the remaining unmet criteria in time for Ocata-1
|
||||
(Nov 14 2016) seems challenging. Progress lacked during the Newton cycle.
|
||||
It is probably time for the core team to be rebooted.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user