Date: Thursday, 20 October 2011

Time: 10:00AM Eastern US (contact MichaelFiedler if you'd like to participate)

The Automation meetings alternate times each meeting to accomodate the global team.

Agenda

* Reoccurring agenda items:

• Recap of previous meeting AutomationMeetings20111006

* Main agenda items:

• Scenario ownership proposal - all are still available.
  • Move each scenario to its own Wiki page
  • Workgroup owner for each scenario
  • Owners begin providing initial details for workgroup discussion
• Continue scenario review. See Automation Scenarios
  • Manual automation execution
  • Defining workflows across OSLC providers
  • Others, as time allows
    • Automation result contributions
    • Automation Tool/Automation Provider interaction
• Previous Action Items:
  • NA
• Next meetings:
  • 27 October
  • Continue discussion of manual execution scenario details.

Minutes

Attending: Michael Fiedler, Eric Bordeau, Brent Albrecht, Pramod Chandoria, Amy Wan, Robert Elves, John Arwe, Charles Rankin, Paul McMahan? , Gili Mendel, Sheehan Anderson, Daniel Berg

Let MichaelFiedler know if I missed anyone.

• Scenario Owners
  • Mylyn Scenario : Tasktop (Robert Elves/Lucas Panjer) - will find a generic name for it
  • Automation Provider/Automation Tool Interaction : Pramod Chandoria
  • Manual Execution - Michael Fiedler
  • Automation Result Contributions/Update - TBD
  • Defining workflows across OSLC Automation providers - TBD
  • Polling/Notifications - TBD

• Primary discussion centered around the Manual Execution scenario. Key discussion points
  • Is the Automation Request artifact discussed in earlier meetings really required?
    • Agreement after discussion was that it was not required - creation of an Automation Job in some "initial/created" state to represent both the Request and Result concepts is sufficient.
    • Discussion on differences between tools with respect to what Automation Job creation means. Some test scenarios were discussed where it might not make complete sense, needs validation (see below).
    • Discussion on the responsibility for and ability to update Automation Job by all actors who might need to.

• • Discussion on the nature of Automation Job updates and contributions if this approach is taken
    • OSLC should specify the attributes for the Automation Job and the mechanism for update (http PUT). Whether workers update directly or the automation provider update on their behalf is a tool decision.
    • Examples of types of updates while execution is in progress could be updates to a status field, log file references, intermediate execution output, etc.

• • Discussion on queuing of Automation Jobs in a "not-started" state
    • Need for automation providers to wait for a qualified workers to execute the job.
    • Some automation providers may just choose to fail immediately instead of queueing
    • Also notion of "run on any available worker" or let the automation provider select the worker
    • OSLC should not specify requirements for queueing or lack of queueing. Job attributes/states need to be flexible enough to allow for it.

• • Discussion on Automation Job creation
    • How are parameters/environment info/other input passed to the Job on creation?
    • How do creators of Jobs know what input attributes to provide? Likely very tool specific
    • Possible approach discussed where the provider exposes an Automation Job creation shapes artifact to document what it expects

• Discussion ended here with the agreement on next steps:
  • Michael Fiedler will try to add details to this scenario and send it to the mailing list. Document the full lifecycle of an automation execution.
  • We will have another meeting next week to discuss:
    • Modifications/Corrections to the scenario
    • Apply the scenario to different domains workgroup members have expertise in (build, deploy, test, DevOps? , automation tracking, etc) and look for holes.

Next meeting: Thursday, 27 October at 1PM Eastern US time