Networking-onos 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 ONOS SDN controller.

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

    No. The project imports Neutron only a couple of dozen times. That said, neutron-lib looks to be included in the requirements.

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

    No.

  • 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 no evidence of that.

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

    Yes, though there are some code smells that may need clean up.

  • 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 a driver for the SFC API (though the requirement seems misplaced.

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.

  • D3. Does the project have a releasenotes tox target, functional and continously working? Provide proof.

    The target seems set up but no release notes are available.

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

    The documentation is available but content is bare bone.

Continuous Integration

  • C1. Does the project have a Grafana dashboard showing historical trends of all the jobs available? Provide proof (links to grafana.openstack.org).

    No.

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

    No.

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

    No.

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

    That does not seem like a Grenade style job be required, but there is no hint that the plugins would be able to talk to controllers running with different versions.

  • C7. Does the project provide multinode CI?

    No.

  • C8. Does the project support Python 3.x? Provide proof.

    No.

Release footprint

  • R1. Does the project adopt semver?

    Yes.

Stable backports

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

Final remarks: the networking-onos project is not well managed, it lacks in many areas and is considerably subpar compared to other Neutron subprojects. Steering it in the right direction in time of the Ocata-1 deadline would require an herculean effort. That said, at the time of writing (October 2016), the project has not seen active development since the end of August 2016. The project will be removed from the Stadium for the Ocata release.

Table Of Contents

Previous topic

Networking-odl Scorecard

Next topic

Networking-ovn Scorecard

Project Source

This Page