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.
TWiki> Main Web>CmHome>CmImplementationReports (23 Apr 2012, RobertElves)

OSLC CM Implementation Reports

Implementers of the OSLC CM specifications are encouraged to place feedback on their experience (good and bad). To add a report, simply copy and paste a section template and fill out any necessary information.

OSLC CM 2.0

This section gathers implementation reports for OSLC CM 2.0

NOTE: These implementation reports are moving to a Google SpreadSheet. Make changes there

Providers

Rational Change

Contact information:

Details about support:

  • OSLC CM 2 service provider
  • OSLC CM 1 service provider

Table of supported capabilities: See Google SpreadSheet

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • CmExperimental
    • woami service
  • Subset of specs supported
    • oslc.prefix is ignored. Assumes default prefixes.
    • oslc.where mostly supported
      • Cannot match against attributes of a person. Full URLs to of 'person's must be used. (E.g., cannot query `dcterms:creator{foaf:givenName="John"}`. Can use `dcterms:creator{<url to John>}`.)
      • OSLC resources in other repositories (linked from a local CR) cannot be queried against. Links to them can be returned in queries results with oslc.select.

Issues:

  1. Missing support for "oslc_cm:label" attribute for links to remote repositories as in OSLC-CM 1.0. This used to allow pretty names for links (chosen for the client when adding links) if the provider does not have the log in information for the remote repository. It's having HTML <A>s with HREFs, but no innerText.
  2. Vague on how "user" attributes are handled. Must each person they have a URL to a separately retrievable foaf:Person resource. Is the URL the only unique handle to a person?
  3. Partial update via PATCH seems overly complex for a logically simple operation.Fortunately it's optional.

Worked well:

  • Consistent resource representations (ServiceProviders? to ChangeRequests? are all just resources)
  • Summary/check list of capabilities made it simpler to know exactly what needs to be implemented.

Rational ClearQuest

Contact information:

  • Contacts: SamPadgett
  • This capability was implemented in Rational ClearQuest 7.1.2.

Details about support:

  • OSLC CM 2.0 Service Provider
  • OSLC CM 1.0 Service Provider

Table of supported capabilities: See Google SpreadSheet

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • Subset of specs supported and why:
    • oslc.where is not fully supported. Missing features:
      • wildcard (*) support on identifiers
      • queries on URI references (partial support is there)
      • typed literals, for instance: "42"ˆˆxsd:integer
      • LANGTAG, for instance: "Bonjour"@fr
    • =oslc.prefix= is not fully supported
  • Deviations from specs and why:
    • oslc.searchTerms does not work in conjunction with oslc.where and oslc.select. This isn't possible give how full text search is currently implemented in the ClearQuest? Core.
  • Any CmExperimental Items Implemented
    • The 'whoami' service

Issues:

  1. It's difficult to map ClearQuest fields to standard OSLC ChangeRequest properties since ClearQuest is completely customizable. Our long-term solution is to give ClearQuest administrators a UI to configure these field mappings.
  2. The OSLC CM 2.0 specification only defines one resource type: ChangeRequest. Many records in ClearQuest (components, projects, and so on) are not change requests, so it's not clear how these resources should be represented.
  3. You can't tell from the service description document alone which resources accept links. This is key for many bridge-style integrations. Consumers might accomplish this through resource shapes, but it would require many requests from the consumer (one for each dialog) and unnecessary overhead.
  4. There's a need to launch delegated UIs for actions on existing records, not just for creating new records. This would help at least two ClearQuest? integrations: UCM (CC-CQ) and DOORS-CQ.
  5. More comprehensive test suites to validate service providers would help future implementations.

Worked well:

  • OSLC CM 2.0 is a clear improvement over 1.0. Common service discovery and other capabilities across domains mean you only need to write your code once and can still work with CM, RM, and QM providers. You can also do more with the REST API without any knowledge about the specific provider you are connecting to.
  • Several integrations with ClearQuest? already using OSLC 2.0 have validated the approach.
  • We were able to build upon our 1.0 implementation to quickly implement a 2.0 provider.
  • The OSLC-Core-Version header helped us maintain backwards compability with older releases while still offerring 2.0 features.

Mantis

Contact information:

  • MadhumitaDhar OlivierBerger
  • This capability was implemented in Mantis 1.2
  • Date of report:
  • Date of availability: (indicate if estimated)

Details about support:

  • Specification version OSLC CM 2.0 (partially supported)
  • Implementation supported: service provider

Table of supported capabilities: See Google SpreadSheet

More details at : https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Oslc/Web/MantisOslcServer

Issues:

  1. As the oslc-cm mantis implementation was created using the native mantis apis available, the query capabilities are limited to those offered by the api.
  2. Lack of an oslc test client/consumer makes it unable to fully verify the completeness of the implementation.
  3. Development is now halted, as efforts of implementors is targeted at FusionForge? instead.

Rational Team Concert (RTC)

Contact information:

  • Reported by PatrickStreule
  • This capability was implemented in RTC 3.0
  • Date of report: 14-September-2010
  • Date of availability: 4Q2010 (estimated)

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 2.0
  • Implementation supported: service provider

Table of supported capabilities: See Google SpreadSheet

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • See Google Docs

Issues:

  1. RI and TCK would have been desirable.
  2. Freely configurable workflows in RTC required considerable work in order to be able to map them to the semantic predicates.
  3. With hindsight, unrestricted RDF/XML + JSON would have been sufficient, IMO

Worked well:

  • Availability of RDF/XML across specs in combination with Jena makes consumption a lot easier

FusionForge? trackers

Contact information:

  • OlivierBerger
  • This capability is currently being implemented in the frame of the COCLICO project, for FusionForge? 5.x
  • Date of report:
  • Date of availability: (indicate if estimated)

Some more details available at : https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Oslc/Web/FusionForgeOslcServer

TBD

Codendi trackers

Contact information:

  • OlivierBerger is currently being implemented in the frame of the COCLICO project.
  • This capability
  • Date of report:
  • Date of availability: (indicate if estimated)

TBD

Tasktop Sync

Contact information:

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 2.0
  • Implementation supported: service provider, OSLC Core UI Preview
  • OSLC-CM UI Preview currently avialable to provide rich hover to systems integrated with Tasktop Sync

Issues:

  1. Not an issue, but a reminder to pay close attention to XML character encoding/escaping to ensure consumers don't fail.

Worked well:

  • Minimal service discovery and html/javascript makes adding OSLC UI Preview support to CM systems very straight forward.

Consumers

Rational DOORS

Contact information:

  • Reported by BrianSteele
  • This capability was implemented in DOORS 9.3.0.1
  • Date of availability: Dec 1, 2010

Details about support:

  • OSLC CM 2.0 Consumer
    • OSLC CM 2.0 Providers tested with:
      • Rational Change
      • Rational ClearQuest?

Table of supported capabilities: See Google SpreadSheet

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

Issues:

  1. State predicates do not give as much granularity as we would like for query purposes. Having a predicate map to more than one state can result in large result sets that must be pruned. Sometimes we want only CRs in the "assigned" state. The closest we can get to that using state predicates is "in progress", which will also get us CRs in other states that are not closed. We are expecting four states in the lifecycle: Assigned, In Review, Approved, Closed. They don't need to have those exact names, but they need to have the same conceptual meaning. We can tell the difference between In Review, Approved, and Closed using the predicates that are available now. However, we can't tell the difference between Assigned and In Review.
  2. Inability to use OR in queries. There are cases where we need to query for more than one state predicate. For most other OSLC queries you can query for a specific attribute using a range of values so there is no need for OR. You cannot do this with state predicates, so we end up writing a query using all the state predicates we don't want =false. For example oslc_cm:closed=false and oslc_cm:approved=false
    This was a minor issue that we were able to workaround easily.

Worked well:

  • Able to use common properties such as dcterms:title, dcterms:description, oslc:shortTitle, oslc_cm:status as query filters and property filters
  • Creating links using common link properties such as oslc_cm:tracksRequirement and oslc_cm:implementsRequirement

Rational Requirements Composer

Contact information:

  • Reported by MarcBaumbach
  • This capability was implemented in Rational Requirements Composer 3.0.1 Beta 3.
  • Date of report: 2011-04-27
  • Date of availability: Rational Requirements Composer 3.0.1

Details about support:

  • OSLC CM 2.0 Consumer
    • OSLC CM 2.0 Providers tested with:
      • Rational Team Concert 3.0.1 Beta 3

Table of supported capabilities: See Google SpreadSheet

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • None

Issues:

  1. I expected implementsRequirementCollection to be part of the CmExperimental namespace as it is involved with plans, but it was still calm:implementsRequirementCollection which seemed a bit inconsistent.

Worked well:

  • Creating links using common link properties such as oslc_cm:tracksRequirement and oslc_cm:implementsRequirement
  • Creating links directly on the resource vs. through a collection reference like we did in 1.0.
  • Common namespaces with OSLC Core made implementations easier across capabilities.

Rational Team Concert (RTC)

Contact information:

  • Reported by PatrickStreule
  • This capability was implemented in RTC 3.0
  • Date of report: 14-Sept-2010
  • Date of availability: 4Q2010 (estimated)

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 2.0
  • Implementation supported: consumer
    • OSLC CM 2.0 Providers tested with:
      • Rational Team Concert 3.0 Beta 2
      • Rational ClearQuest?

Table of supported capabilities: See Google SpreadSheet

Rational Quality Manager

Contact information:

  • Reported by PaulMcMahan
  • This capability was implemented in Rational Quality Manager 3.0 Beta 2.
  • Date of report: 14-Sept-2010
  • Date of availability: 4Q2010 (estimated)

Details about support:

  • OSLC CM 2.0 Consumer
    • OSLC CM 2.0 Providers tested with:
      • Rational Team Concert 3.0 Beta 2
      • Rational ClearQuest?

Table of supported capabilities: See Google SpreadSheet

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

  • Plans

Issues:

  1. I None

Worked well:

  • Support for common properties, namepspaces, resource formats, and REST conventions defined in OSLC core
  • Query support is flexible and suitable for many use cases
  • Relationship properties modeled directly on the resource vs. in a separate collection
  • JSON support for CRUD operations from a web UI
  • Backward compatible with CM 1.0 using OSLC-Core-Version header

<2.0 template>

<Implementer> (copy and update template)

Contact information:

  • Reported by...
  • This capability was implemented in...
  • Date of report:
  • Date of availability: (indicate if estimated)

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 2.0
  • Implementation supported: <consumer> and/or <service provider>
  • (if consumer, please add....)
    • OSLC CM 2.0 Providers tested with:
      • (list out providers)

Table of supported capabilities: Add column in the Google SpreadSheet for your implementation

Additional details about support: (not noted in table)

Issues:

  1. <issues>

Worked well:

  • <good things>

OSLC CM 1.0

This section gathers implementation reports for OSLC CM 1.0

Rational ClearQuest

Contact information:

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 1.0
  • Implemenation supported: service provider
  • Detailed information: ClearQuest REST API
  • Subset of specs supported and why:
    • prefill of submission dialog not supported, fix planned
    • exploratory support of "ChangeRequest" resource. CQ has a very flexible model and no transformation framework. We provided an experimental XSL backend that allows this to work
  • Deviations from specs and why:
    • don't fully support oslc_cm:collref as spec'd: missed during testing, will fix in upcoming fixpack

Issues:

  1. Consumers had issues with relative paths in service description document

Worked well:

  • Consistent JSON/XML formats
  • Consumers have found inlined properties to be very useful to limit the number of requests they need to make
  • Service Discovery
  • Delegated Web UIs work very well. Supporting the window.name IFrame protocol is tricky, but necessary for older browser support. Maybe we need a consumable Javascript library (that doesn't require Dojo) which hides some of the messy details from OSLC consumers.
  • Sample application showing the integration early on worked well

Tasktop ClearQuest? Connector

Information:

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 1.0
  • Implemenation supported: consumer of ClearQuest? OSLC api

Issues:

  1. Need ServiceDescriptor? to contain additional element describing the request path for a change request given its identifier. This could eliminate problems when the repository location changes domains. I.e. if the domain changes, clients only need to update info from the service descriptor without need to update stale data in cached change requests themselves.
  2. Need clarification on rdf:about vs rdf:resource attribute usage in ChangeRequest? (which is correct?)
  3. Example response documents for a Simple Query would be useful

Worked well:

  • Service discovery to easily guide user through repository selection
  • Service discovery of available services for programatic access
  • OSLC simple query support

Tasktop Rational Team Concert Connector

Contact information:

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 1.0
  • Implemenation supported: consumer of RTC's OSLC-CM api

Rational Team Concert (RTC) 2.0

Contact information:

Details about support:

Issues:

  1. ATOM format for result sets questionable. It is expensive to generate because it requires additional information that is not automatically part of the result set (and in most cases is not needed by clients anyway). Most of our clients clearly prefer the simple xml and json formats.

Worked well:

  • Selective and inlined properties: you can get exactly what you need.
  • Support for simple to use JSON format.

Rational Quality Manager (RQM) 2.0

Contact information:

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 1.0
  • Implementation supported: consumer

Issues:

  1. No recommended or suggested specification for establishing back link

Worked well:

  • <TBD>

OSLC-CM V1 demo server in PHP (oslcv1-demo-server-php)

Well, this is not yet a real OSLC-CM server, as it's only a protoype and lacks many features, but we hope it could be covering the whole of OSLC-CM V1 some day (when its 1.0 version will be released).

Still, it may help test client tools. More details at : https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Oslc/Web

Sorry, not following the template, as it's not really a real implementation so far. -- OlivierBerger - 02 Dec 2009

Add-on for Mantis 1.2

Contact information:

Details about support:

  • Target Specification version to be supported: OSLC CM 1.0
  • Implemenation supported: provider

Issues:

  1. Not yet complete OSLC-CM V1 : work in progress

Worked well:

  • <TBD>

Rational Change (1.0 support)

Contact information:

Details about support:

  • Target Specification version to be supported: OSLC CM 1.0
  • Implemenation supported: provider

Issues:

  1. So many namespaces!
  2. So many ways to get a URL (rdf:about, oslc_cm:resource, atom links).
  3. Unlike a more traditional, procedural API, it's hard to know what OSLC even does from the spec, which is about REST style resources more than operations. A quick high-level summary of all the supported operations (ad-hoc query, modify CR, etc.) and pointers to the relevant details in the spec could make it faster to understand
  4. Multiple return formats (JSON, XML) were easy enough to implement, but make for somewhat tedious testing. I can see how both formats are useful to different consumers though. Not a big deal.
  5. No standard test suite means I don't really know if my implementation is "done" or correct. I essentially used RQM as a client as the de facto test suite, though it doesn't provide complete coverage of everything in OSLC. This was my biggest issue.
  6. URLs seem awfully fragile since they capture the hostname and port of the Change server at the time the request was made. Customers often upgrade and rename hardware, meaning any URLs stored in, say, RQM will go rancid on us.
  7. Lots of missing stuff (obviously): getting a list of possible properties, required properties, handling attachments, etc.

Worked well:

  • Basic-auth made for an easy authentication scheme.
  • Atom doesn't seem like a very convenient wrapper format, but it's nice that IE and Firefox both know how to display. It's easier to debug a query that way or explain OSLC to someone when there's something a little more tangible to see than just XML.
  • OSLC happened to map pretty closely to how Change already works. Coincidence or an artifact of careful planning and a relatively small set of operations in 1.0?

Rally Software

Contact information:

  • MarkRinger
  • As of May 2010, we are just starting to code our first OSLC Consumer using ClearQuest? as the provider. We already have a ClearQuest? Connector using the old COM API so are not in a huge hurry to release. But, we do want to support OSLC and see it as a much easier spec to implement, it will make support of the connector simpler, and will also provide leverage and learning for us as more ALM tools support OSLC.

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 1.0
  • Implemenation supported: consumer
  • Deviations from specs and why:
    • Plan to use custom ClearQuest? endpoints for custom fields and actions

Issues:

  1. Just starting. More soon...

Worked well:

  • Just starting. More soon...

<1.0 template>

<Implementor> (copy and update template)

Contact information:

  • Reported by...
  • This capability was implemented in...

Details about support:

  • Specification version supported: OSLC CM 1.0
  • Implemenation supported: <consumer and/or service provider>
  • Subset of specs supported and why:
    • ...
  • Deviations from specs and why:
    • ...

Issues:

  1. <issues>

Worked well:

  • <good things>
Edit | Attach | Print version | History: r45 < r44 < r43 < r42 < r41 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r45 - 23 Apr 2012 - 15:25:20 - RobertElves
 
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