OVP Portal Requirements

Owned by Jim Baker
Last updated: Jun 09, 2020

 

Attendees: Georg Kunz Brandon Wick Lincoln Lavoie  Jim Baker

OVP portal 

  • repo based development for interfaces to test results
  • portal is basically a dynamic representation of test.db results
  • Initial plan: One-time development effort by external company, followed by community based support


Open Questions:

  • Long term maintenance suggests a hosted project under LFN - ONAP or OPNFV
    • OPNFV/CNTT technically have the alignment to the OVP outcomes
    • ONAP has more development resources and may be a better project owner for the portal?
  • Community has been unable to support the current portal, why would the community be better equipped on some new portal?
  • How to get to a specific project plan?
    • Have existing portal and a list of improvements
    • UNH is a knowledgeable supplier - can we get confirmation of UNH willingness to build/support
  • Lincoln Lavoieto develop SOW for presentation and review  




 

Attendees: Heather Kirksey Jim Baker Lincoln Lavoie Brandon Wick Georg Kunz

Problem statement:

  • Open source development (Dovetail) community dissolved 
  • Lacking skill set in UI development - Intracomm was contracted
    • Original portal leveraged from OpenStack

 

Attendees: Lincoln Lavoie Rabi Abdel Georg Kunz Brandon Wick

Reviewed requirements set below.

  • We reviewed and agreed the requirement below down to the "Results Format" section.
  •  Group will continue to review that section offline to prepare for next week
  • Lincoln Lavoie will create a flow diagram for the portal workflow.


Requirements

This list of requirements should be expanded in level of detail to support an RFP:

  • General requirements
    • The portal must at least provide the same functionality as today's portals (see https://nfvi-verified.lfnetworking.org/#/ AND https://vnf-verified.lfnetworking.org/#/)
    • One portal should support multiple programs, that can be searched / filtered by program/badge type on the public listing page.
    • The public lists should searchable, and allow filtering by the program type, company, and other columns displayed on the main page.
    • High-level use cases 
      1. Support upload, validation, display, sharing, and manage test results and application by "user"
      2. Support a review workflow of test results by "reviewers"
      3. Publicly list companies and products which have obtained a badge in a "marketplace", as marked by "admin"
  • Test Result Management
    • authenticated users (role "user") must be able to
      • upload test results
      • edit meta data (application) of a test result set (product name, etc.)
      • view, delete, and edit only their own test results
      • change status of a test result between "private" and "for review"
  • review management
    • authenticated reviewers (role "reviewer") must be able to:
      • access only to test results set to state "for review" (not all uploaded results)
      • cast a vote (-1, 0, 1) on instance of test results submitted to review
      • Add comment along with there vote (i.e. why they voted -1, etc.)
  • OVP release management
    • Management of releases of OVP (create new, edit, delete) must be runtime operations, i.e., not requiring new versions of the portal
      • a OVP release comprises
        • a unique identifier (e.g. OVP020.09)
        • links to documentation
        • a list of test cases for each program type that are mandatory or optional
          • This list is used to validate if a set of submitted results meets the requirements for the OVP release.
  • portal lifecycle management
    • all management operations on test results, market place entries, users, and new releases of OVP must be runtime operations not requiring new builds of the web portal
    • separation of LCM of the portal instance (responsibility of LF IT) and content (responsibility of OVP admins)
  • Public List Management
    • "admins" (user role) must be able to manage entries of the marketplace (create, edit, delete)
    • all entries of the marketplace must be stored in persistent storage
    • entries must include support to display a company logo (provided by the user submitting the application)
    • market place data items per entry: see current fields + <add more if needed, Brandon?>
      • A full list of fields for the existing NFVI and VNF programs will be provided by the LFN CVC
      • LFN CVC will provide guidance on which fields will display on the top level list (main page) or only in a detailed listing (linked to from the main page)
  • User Management
    • Users log in through a Linux Foundation Open ID
    • A user logging in for the first time is automatically assigned the "user" role.
    • User Roles
      •  "user"
        • Can upload and manage test results
        • Can only see own test results
        • Can create an application to submit their results to review
      • "reviewer"
        • can see all test results marked as "for review" by its "user" (the user is the owner of the results / application)
      • "admin"
        • can manage assigned user roles
        • can manage (create, update, delete) entries to the marketplace
    • A portal user can have multiple assigned roles, i.e. Jo can be assigned the roles of "admin" and "user"
  • Results Format
    • Should be as flexible as possible.
    • Results are uploaded as a zip or tar.gz file, other formats will be rejected
    • Must include a "test result summary" in the archive file root
    • The "test results summary" will include:
      • Version of the tool used (i.e. what version of functest was running)
      • Date & time of the test run
    • validation and display of test results (see also terminology below)
      • the web portal must validate uploaded test results by comparing the "test result summary" to a "test result guideline"
        • "test result guideline": source of truth
          • list of all test cases which are part of a given OVP release
            • use case: detect if test cases are missing from uploaded test results
          • the expected result for passing each test case (functional tests: "pass", non-functional: "value")
          • stored in web portal only
        • "test result summary"
          • part of the "test result package" generated by test tool
          • json formatted
          • should include in addition to today (AP on test tooling team)
            • OVP release ID (e.g. 2020.10)
            • OVP program type (e.g. NVFI, VNF, ...)
          • example of a "test result package" currently generated by test tooling:
      • optional requirements, requires close collaboration with and input from test tooling team
        • define a schema for formal validation of test result summary
        • define a schema for formal validation of test result guide
  • Validation of Results
    • The portal should be capable of validating the submitted results.
    • Validation checks the results contain the correct test cases (minimum set) and those test cases pass
    • The set of test cases (minimum set) should be controlled by the portal admin.
      • An OVP release may include multiple "minimum sets" that apply to different releases of Functest and OpenStack




  • Terminology
    • "test result package": archive containing "test result summary" file and individual logs
    • "test result summary": json formatted file containing a summary of all test cases / one run of the compliance test tool
    • "test result guideline": json formatted file containing all tests which are part of an OVP release + expected result for passing a test



Requirements (as noted during the call on :

  • Development
    • Represent the workflow of the respective participants
      • xtesting results uploaded - schema for uploads
      • portal to validate/accept inputs - version checking
      • Allow authorized set of people to manage the badging administration
    • No regression of functionality from Dovetail implementation
    • Alignment of results formats from ONAP/OPNFV
      • ?Allow all versions to be uploaded - deprecate older versions?
        • Bring forward existing badging - unlikely to support old schema/results 
        • Minimum: current xtesting and ONAP results - schemas
    • Converged portal (VNF/NFVIs/CNF) 
    • Built on LF infra (shared vs. dedicated)
    • Desire portal to be managed without LF IT interactions 
    • Naming changes?
      • Define that early
    • User management
      • integrated with LF SSO 
      • Privileged users for management
    • 3rd party OVP lab integration 
    • Use existing portal as a basis for MVP definition
    • Timeline?
      • Objective: full MVP implementation - Oct 2020 (ONES Sept 28)
        • Public availability
        • Migrate existing data
        • Internal Go-Live –  
        • Development time – start  
        • Review submissions to RFP
        • RFP open time –  
        • RFP definition complete –  
        • Budget setting/approval – LF GB  
        • Vendor qualification - at least 3 vendors
      • Support for incoming data sets and badging processes
  • Hosting
  • Maintenance
  • Georg Kunzto expound on requirements by