Networking-midonet Scorecard

Neutron integration

  • N0. Does the project use the Neutron REST API or relies on proprietary backends?

    No.

  • N2. Do project members actively contribute to help neutron-lib achieve its goal?

    No, besides occasional review.

  • N3. Do project members collaborate with the core team to enable subprojects to loosely integrate with the Neutron core platform by helping with the definition of modular interfaces?

    Yes, on some areas like QoS.

  • N4. How does the project provide networking services? Does it use modular interfaces as provided by the core platform?

    It provides ML2 driver and a set of service plugins including L3, which communicate with midonet using via midonet REST API. Midonet and its agents provide networking services accordingly. Optionally it can be configured to work with neutron agents (like neutron dhcp/metadata agents) at the time of writing it also provides monolithic core plugins but they are planned to be replaced by the ML2 driver.

Documentation

  • D2. If the project provide API extensions, does the project have an api-ref tox target, functional and continously working? Provide proof (links to logs.openstack.org).

    No.

  • D4. Describe the types of documentation available: developer, end user, administrator, deployer.

    Developer and admin documentation is available. End user documentation for client extensions does not seem to be available.

Continuous Integration

  • C3. Does the project have CI for functional coverage? If so, does it include DB migration and sync validation?

    No, but DB migration and validation is achieved via unit testing job.

  • C4. Does the project have CI for fullstack coverage?

    No.

  • C6. Does the project require CI for Grenade coverage?

    No.

  • C7. Does the project provide multinode CI?

    No.

Release footprint

  • R1. Does the project adopt semver?

Yes.

Client library

  • L1. If the project requires a client library, how does it implement CLI and API bindings?

    There are neutronclient extensions but no OSC mapping.

Scorecard

Scorecard
N0 | N
N1 | Y
N2 | N
N3 | Y
N4 | Y
N5 | N
D1 | Y
D2 | N
D3 | Y
D4 | Y
C1 | Y
C2 | Y
C3 | N
C4 | Y
C5 | Y
C6 | N
C7 | N
C8 | Y
R1 | Y
R2 | Y
R3 | Y
R4 | Y
S1 | Y
L1 N

Final remarks: overall networking-midonet is well managed. Its scope is a lot wider than other subprojects as it covers almost the entirety of the networking spectrum that Neutron provides. Some may consider networking-midonet a lot closer to Dragonflow and Astara in terms of scope than networking-ovn or neutron-dynamic-routing to name a few examples. Gaps in API documentation, specs approval and client mappings will need to be addressed.