Networking-odl Scorecard

Neutron integration

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

No, the project maps the various Neutron APIs on top of the OpenDayLight SDN controller.

  • N1. Does the project integrate/use neutron-lib?

    Yes. Roughly only 10% of the imports have been migrated over.

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

    No. There is no evidence of that.

  • 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?

    There is some evidence of that, especially in relation to how the registry component has been defined.

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

    Yes.

  • N5. If the project provides new API extensions, have API extensions been discussed and accepted by the Neutron drivers team? Please provide links to API specs, if required.

    The project currently provides driver for various APIs like SFC, L2GW, QoS, etc. Some of these APIs need closer scrutiny by the neutron drivers team. Please, read assessment for the relevant projects.

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).

    The project does not propose new APIs.

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

    The documentation is available but content is bare bone. Host Configuration is all there seems to be available. If OpenDaylight-hosted content is available, this should at least be referenced.

Continuous Integration

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

    No. There seems there is no DB migration and sync validation as the project introduces its own data models. Review is eloquent.

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

    No.

  • C5. Does the project have CI for Tempest coverage? If so, specify nature (API and/or Scenario).

    Yes, voting, though exercising only a subset of API tests and none of the scenario tests affecting networking.

  • C6. How does a project validate upgrades on a continuous basis? Does the project require or support CI for Grenade coverage?

    The plan is to require it in early Ocata for openstack upgrade. Upgrading CI runs against each supported ODL releases (berrylium, boron and carbon) in order to guarantee the compatibility between neutron master vs ODL versions. On the other hand, neutron stables + ODL master is tested by opendaylight test infra.

  • C7. Does the project provide multinode CI?

    No.

Release footprint

  • R1. Does the project adopt semver?

    Yes.

Stable backports

  • S1. Does the project have stable branches and/or tags? Provide history of backports.

    The stable backports have been historically managed by the Neutron team.

Client library

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

    It does not seem like client extensions are required.

Scorecard

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

Final remarks: better coverage and more exhaustive documentation are the gaps identified with this project.

Table Of Contents

Previous topic

Networking-midonet Scorecard

Next topic

Networking-onos Scorecard

Project Source

This Page