Networking-midonet Scorecard¶
Neutron integration¶
N0. Does the project use the Neutron REST API or relies on proprietary backends?
No.
N1. Does the project integrate/use neutron-lib?
Yes. Of the total ~200 neutron related imports, neutron-lib is imported roughly ~20% of the time. The project has a periodic job against master neutron-lib changes.
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.
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.
It has several extensions: agent-management is planned to be deprecated and removed; bgp-speaker-router-insertion is an extension to neutron-dynamic-routing. It is being tracked by RFE https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1583184; router-interface-fip. It is being tracked by RFE https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1566191. logging-resource is slightly matching spec proposal https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203509; finally, gateway-device which may match L2GW’s l2-border-gateway api instead. None of these extensions have been reviewed and accepted by the Neutron drivers team.
Documentation¶
D1. Does the project have a doc tox target, functional and continuously working? Provide proof (links to logs.openstack.org).
Yes.
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.
D3. Does the project have a releasenotes tox target, functional and continously working? Provide proof.
Yes.
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¶
C1. Does the project have a Grafana dashboard showing historical trends of all the jobs available? Provide proof (links to grafana.openstack.org).
Yes.
C2. Does the project have CI for unit coverage? Provide proof (links to logs.openstack.org)
Yes.
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.
C5. Does the project have CI for Tempest coverage? If so, specify nature (API and/or Scenario).
Yes.
C6. Does the project require CI for Grenade coverage?
No.
C7. Does the project provide multinode CI?
No.
C8. Does the project support Python 3.x? Provide proof.
Yes.
Release footprint¶
R1. Does the project adopt semver?
Yes.
R2. Does the project have release deliverables? Provide proof as available in the release repo.
Yes.
R3. Does the project use upper-constraints?
Yes.
Does the project integrate with OpenStack Proposal Bot for requirements updates?
Yes.
Stable backports¶
S1. Does the project have stable branches and/or tags? Provide history of backports.
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 |
|
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.
