This wiki is locked. Future workgroup activity and specification development must take place at our new wiki. For more information, see this blog post about the new governance model and this post about changes to the website.

OSLC Automation Spec V1 Issues

This section captures the issues raised via review comments on:

Issues are organized via the specification outline.

Note: dates below use US format (mm/dd/yyyy)

Here's what the states mean:

  • OPEN - indicates that we have no response for the issue yet
  • RESOLVED - indicates that we have a response that we believe resolves the issue
    • RESOLVED - indicates it is resolved as by above definition and edits in the draft specification have been made.
  • CLOSED - issue has been resolved and the resolution has been reviewed by the workgroup
  • DEFERRED - indicates that issue will be addressed in guidance after the specification converges
  • TABLED - indicates that issue will be reconsidered at some later but unspecified date

Issues during draft development

  1. TABLED - Suggestion from JohnArwe: Move the compliance table to an appendix and reference it here. Different from what other specs do but potentially more friendly for casual readers.
    • The compliance table is still in the body - but it has been updated to improve readability. (MichaelFiedler, 16 Feb 2012)
  2. RESOLVED - The Core specification makes Query Capabilities and the OSLC Query Syntax MAY items. Currently, they are defined in Automation as MUST (cf. CM and QM specification). Do we want to relax these requirements for Automation? or keep them as MUST?
    • Workgroup consensus is that they remain as MUST requirements.
  3. RESOLVED - The current specification defines an oslc_auto:automationinstructions attribute on Automation Plans. Intent is to capture (reference or inline) a service provider specific resource representing how an automation will be executed. This could be a script, binary, text instructions representing what the automation will do, etc. Is this required for the V1 scenarios.
    • Workgroup consensus is that these instructions are not required for the scenarios in V1 of the specification.
  4. OPEN - State enumerations. There are at least three attributes in the automation request and result which could have an enumerated set of values: oslc_auto:status, oslc_auto:desiredStatus and oslc_auto:verdict. Does the specification need to specify the legal values for these attributes? See the CM spec's definition of state predicate properties for a possible approach: CmSpecificationV2#State_Predicates and CmSpecificationV2#Resource_ChangeRequest.
    • 21 Feb 2012: Specification updated with state predicates for oslc_auto:verdict. Still open: Are state predicates needed for oslc_auto:state and oslc_auto:desiredState?
  5. RESOLVED - the relationship from an Automation Request to an Automation Plan was recently changed from exactly-one to zero-to-one. Objections? There seems to be a possible use case where you create the request in some holding state and later hook it to a specific test plan and move the desired state to ready-to-run state. Too advanced for V1?
    • Workgroup consensus was that Automation Request -> Plan and Automation Result -> Plan should be exactly-one. Spec updated
  6. RESOLVED - Automation Results currently refer to exactly-one Automation Request and exactly-one Automation Plan. Should these be zero-to-one. Can results be created in the absence of plans?
    • Workgroup consensus was that Automation Request -> Result should be zero-to-one and Automation Result -> Plan should be exactly-one. Spec updated
  7. RESOLVED - Need the workgroup to review the delegated UI table and come to agreement on MUST/SHOULD/MAY for each artifact type.
    • 21 Feb 2012 - Reviewed by workgroup - no disagreements raised
  8. OPEN - Parameter Definitions have been partially restored in the spec (Description of them, HTTP support table). Should they be a separate resource type or just left as defined in the Automation Plan with a range of oslc:Property?
Edit | Attach | Print version | History: r6 < r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions...
Topic revision: r5 - 15 Mar 2012 - 16:46:33 - MichaelFiedler
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Copyright � by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use
Ideas, requests, problems regarding this site? Send feedback