Alert.png The wiki is deprecated and due to be decommissioned by the end of September 2022.
The content is being migrated to other supports, new updates will be ignored and lost.
If needed you can get in touch with EGI SDIS team using operations @ egi.eu.

EGI-InSPIRE:NSRW IMPLEMENTATION RT

From EGIWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

General Comments / Assumptions

  • External Technology Providers will use GGUS to submit tickets
  • Internal Technolgy Providers will use RT to submit tickets
  • Emergency Releases (External and Internal) will be handled only by RT
  • This is Based on Feedback_from_M._Drescher

(Custom) fields

EmergencyRelease

This is a check-box field used to flag a release as an emergency one which implies that the release should go straight to production


Status

Existing field. Takes the general RT status of the ticket.

Allowed values:

  • new - Ticket is created, but not assigned yet. Initial state once synched from GGUS.
  • open - Ticket is assigned to a person or group (does that feature exist in RT?) and work is undertaken
  • rejected - The ticket is faulty, invalid, duplicate or otherwise something that must not inflict work upon potential assignees.
  • resolved - The request has been resolved with an outcome (and auditable trace of documentation etc.!). Causes the ticket to be synchronized back to GGUS.
  • deleted - does not apply
  • stalled - does not apply(?)


RolloutProgress

The RolloutProgress reflects both the phases of the SW release workflow, and the final outcome.

Allowed values:

  • Unverified - The pertinent release has not yet been verified against the Quality Criteria (QC), but is available for that in the "Unverified" repository.
  • In verification - The release is under assessment against the QC.
  • Waiting for response - The QC verification officer is waiting for a response from the technology provider for one or more minor, uncritical issues of the package (missing documentation link, for example). Note that the state may oscillate between "In verification" and "Waiting for response". Each state change is recorded hence available for metrics.
  • StageRollout - The release has been successfully verified, and a link to the final verification report in the document database has been provided in the ticket.
  • Accepted - The EA have tested the release in their production infrastructure (open issue what is the testing process? Is this anywhere formalised?), and written reports of each EA were aggregated and consolidated by the assigned release manager. The consolidated report is stored in the document database with references to the individual EA reports. A link to the aggregated report is given in the ticket. The aggregated report also MUST report any warnings issued by any EA during the StageRollout phase of the release.
  • Rejected - The EA have tested the release in their production infrastructure. Same reporting requirements as for "Accepted" apply. A release may also fail the QC verification. In that case the report must be present reasoning about the failure of the verification.
  • Failed - Verifying the release has failed, due to technical issues, such as repository unavailability, network timeouts, etc. The detailed reason is given in the message when changing the ticket status. This most likely happens when moving the release from one repository to another, e.g. from "Unverified" to "StageRollout".


QualityCriteria Verification Report

This field holds a link to the report of the QC verification process.


StageRollout Report

This field holds a link to the consolidated report summarising individual reports of all EAs.


Repository URL

Holds the currently valid URL to download the installation package. So, if the ticket has the current RolloutProgress of "StageRollout" (or equivalent), the URL should point to the package in the StageRollout repository.

Release metadata

This "field" I envision not really a field, but an attachment to the ticket that holds the XML data for the release referred to in this ticket. Didn't know how to describe it. For better automation the attachment should always have the same name (for example, "release.xml") and be attached throught the WS integration with GGUS (if possible).

The contents of this XML file is currently under discussion, so I will not drill into it right now.


Owner

The owner of the ticket should change from person to person, depending on the progress through the workflow. I am not a fan of assigning the ticket to a group of people, as this often leads to confusion as to who should pick up the ticket. For now I would like to see group leaders, such as the Task leaders for QC verification (TSA2.3, Carlos Fernandez), and the Task Leader for SR (TSA1.x, Mario David) as standing assignees who then delegate the work appropriately, and collect and consolidate the reports (see other custom fields, and workflow comments).


Watchers

I would like a list of watchers added to the tickets to ensure proper monitoring. Again, I think the task leaders for QC verification and SR are mandatory watchers, as well as the task leader for repository management (TSA2.4, Kostas). I also would want the members of said tasks (TSA2.4 and TSA2.3 in particular) as watchers. The activity leader for SA2 (currently me, Michel) should be a mandatory watcher as well.

I am thinking of the task leader of TSA2.5, Michael, to also watch this queue as to give the DMSU a forecast on what is in the current pipeline of patches that may be rolled out into production.

I also would like to include the group of early adopters in SR to be watchers, to get their heads up for what's going on. But that needs more discussion that perhaps Mario David may lead.


Workflow

The workflow itself seem look fine. We have three distinct phases, i.e.

  • Preparation
  • Verification
  • StageRollout

We have enough details available to flesh out all three phases, but I am still a bit unclear about the handover between all three phases. I consider those handovers very important as the responsibility for the ticket changes from one task/group to another.

Having said that, I would like to explicitly state that the group leader for the Verification Phase has the authority to change the RolloutProgress from "Unverified" to "Rejected", "Waiting for Reply" or "StageRollout". Likewise, the group leader for the StageRollout has the authority to change the ticket status from "StageRollout" to "Accepted" or "Rejected". The status of the ticket may also be changd accordingly (e.g. to "Resolved").

Requests/Issues

Issues Description Requester Status
Bla Bla Bla Bla

Fields in RT Ticket

Field Description Values Read Write Status
RepositoryURL Holds a Pointer to the Release in EGI Repo. Implemented
Sync-Protocol indicates which protocol to be used to download the data rsync (later http, ftp will be added)

default: rsync

pending
Sync-URL Points to the repo from which we download the release to our reposiotory pending
Software Mainly, this field it is aimed to provide the association between the submitted release/ticket and the related Software. This would be very useful, in order the Repo to be able to manage Software-specific movements.

For example: The CA software releases should be moved to the Production, overwriting the previous release, on the other hand, a gLite release (upon acceptance for Production) it should be appended to the existed one. Assuming, that this workflow it could be negotiated and agreed with the SW-provider once per software, keeping a relation between the SW and the submitted releases, the Repo could be able to perform the appropriate per-software/custom movements.

proposed
ReleaseType Incremental or Not Release Incremental, NonIncremental proposed
EmergencyRelease See Above pending
Status See Above pending
RolloutProgress See Above pending
Verification-Report See Above pending
StageRollout-Report See Above pending
Release-metadata See Above pending
Owner See Above pending
Watchers See Above pending


Legend

  • Proposed: Field proposed by the developers awaiting implementation
  • Pending: Approuved by SA2 Awaiting Implementation
  • Implemented: Field already implemented in RT

Metrics for the REPO

Metrics from SLA with TPs

Metric Description Status
M.REPO.1 Number of releases delivered to EGI Per month Pending
M.REPO.2 Number of releases that passed the quality criteria verification Per Month. Pending
M.REPO.3 Number of releases that passed StageRollout verification Per month. Pending


EGI SA2 Metrics

Metric ID Metric Task Status
M.SA2.1 Number of software components recorded in the UMD Roadmap TSA2.1 Pending
M.SA2.2 Number of UMD Roadmap Capabilities defined through validation criteria TSA2.2 Pending
M.SA2.3 Number of software incidents found in production that result in changes to quality criteria TSA2.2 Pending
M.SA2.4 Number of new releases validated against defined criteria TSA2.3 Pending
M.SA2.5 Mean time taken to validate a release TSA2.3 Pending
M.SA2.6 Number of releases failing validation TSA2.3 Pending
M.SA2.7 Number of new releases contributed into the Software Repository from all types of software providers TSA2.4 Pending
M.SA2.8 Number of unique visitors to the Software Repository TSA2.4 Pending
M.SA2.9 Number of releases downloaded from the Software Repository TSA2.4 Pending
M.SA2.10 Number of tickets assigned to DMSU TSA2.5 Pending
M.SA2.11 Mean time to resolve DMSU tickets TSA2.5 Pending

References

EMI Release Plan

Questions from the Developers