Date: Thursday, 03 November 2011

Time: 1:00 PM 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 AutomationMeetings20111027

• Continue review of the automation execution scenario
  • Review AutomatedTestExecutionScenario - an application of the generic scenario to the test domain
• Discuss Agent/Worker sub-scenario. See examples in the AutomatedTestExecutionScenario
• Plans for moving from scenario development to spec development
• Previous Action Items:
  • DONE: PaulMcMahan, VaibhavSrivastava and PramodChandoria will document a test scenario for the next meeting
  • TODO: DavidBrauneis, CharlesRankin and MichaelFiedler will take this offline to investigate pros/cons of both approaches and report back to the workgroup.
    • Still pending
• Next meetings:
  • 10 November - will get back on alternating AM/PM schedule.

Minutes

Attending: Michael Fiedler, Lucas Panjer, Bill Higgins, Dan Berg, Pramod Chandoria, Vaibhav Srivastava, Paul McMahan? , Barys Dubauski, Rich Rakich, Bala Rajaraman, Sheehan Anderson, Eric Bordeau, John Arwe, David Brauneis

I may have missed some folks, just let MichaelFiedler know or add your name directly in the wiki.

* Primary discussion was around the automated test execution scenario.

• General agreement on the basics of scenario 1A and 1B. Division of steps in the scope of OSLC and out of scope were agreed on.
• Clarification that a test in this scenario was equivalent to an automation plan. A test could consist of one or more test case executions
• Brief discussion again on whether the automation request/result concept should be captured by 1 artifact or 2
  • significant in determining how the consumer finds the result in a 3 artifact model
  • MichaelFiedler will setup the meeting next week to discuss. LucasPanjer agreed to participate in addition to DavidBrauneis and CharlesRankin.
• Short discussion on contributions in the build scenario - test tool contributes back to build automation result after tests run

• Test scenarios indicate need for common protocol for agents to register with a test provider and receive jobs
• Discussion on difficulty/impossibility of universal protocols
• Nature of agent/server interactions across all types of automation tools extremely diverse
• Some agreement that automation server-to-automation server interactions more in scope for OSLC. Servers acting in consumer/provider roles, perhaps simultaneously.
• We will discuss this one more time in the build scenario.
  • Possible modification: discuss possibility that only optional agent registration is in scope.

• TODO: MichaelFiedler will set up the meeting to discuss the request/result artifact issue.
• DONE: BarysDubauski has posted basic execution scenario for the build domain on Automated build scenarios for comparison to test.

Next meeting: Thursday, 10 November at 10 AM Eastern US time