Neutron-vpnaas Scorecard¶
Neutron integration¶
N0. Does the project use the Neutron REST API or relies on proprietary backends?
Yes. Neutron-vpnaas implements its own set of Neutron API extensions on top of the Neutron core framework and it does so by using the service plugin model. The API exposed has open source implementations, and it provides a pluggable mechanism for proprietary backends.
N1. Does the project integrate/use neutron-lib?
Yes. The migration report shows that there are currently 621 total imports. Neutron is imported 119 times and Neutron-lib 81 times, for a migration percentage of 40.5000%,
N2. Do project members actively contribute to help neutron-lib achieve its goal?
No. None of the project core members have merged anything meaningful into neutron-lib (source: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/neutron-lib+status:merged,75).
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.
N4. How does the project provide networking services? Does it use modular interfaces as provided by the core platform?
Yes, the VPN agent has been recently re-implemented using the L3 agent extension API. Please look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1692128 and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/488247/. This approach makes the VPN agent easier to deploy along with the L3 agent.
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.
VPNaaS API was initially created by the neutron core team, and so implicitly had been agreed upon by previous core 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).
Yes. There is an API reference and is being confirmed its accuracy, see:
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.
Yes. These documentations are going to be published, see:
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?
Yes. We have gate-neutron-vpnaas-dsvm-functional-sswan-ubuntu-xenial for functional coverage and DB migration tests are running as a part of it.
C4. Does the project have CI for fullstack coverage?
No. We consider it as lower priority and it has none at the moment.
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?
Yes. But it has none.
C7. Does the project provide multinode CI?
No. But it is needed to support L3-HA (and/or DVR) and unnecessary until then.
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.
R4. Does the project integrate with OpenStack Proposal Bot for requirements updates?
Stable backports¶
S1. Does the project have stable branches and/or tags? Provide history of backports.
Yes. For example: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/neutron-vpnaas/log/?h=stable/pike
Client library¶
L1. If the project requires a client library, how does it implement CLI and API bindings?
Yes. There are Neutron CLI and API bindings. OSC is going to be done, see:
Scorecard¶
Scorecard |
|
|---|---|
N0 | Y |
|
N1 | Y |
|
N2 | N |
|
N3 | Y |
|
N4 | Y |
|
N5 | Y |
|
D1 | Y |
|
D2 | Y |
|
D3 | Y |
|
D4 | Y |
|
C1 | Y |
|
C2 | Y |
|
C3 | Y |
|
C4 | N |
|
C5 | Y |
|
C6 | N |
|
C7 | N |
|
C8 | Y |
|
R1 | Y |
|
R2 | Y |
|
R3 | Y |
|
R4 | Y |
|
S1 | Y |
|
L1 | Y |
Final remarks¶
At the time of writing the project scores changed to positively if compared with the last assessment [1] [2] for following 7 criteria: N3, N4, D2, D4, C1, C5, L1. It makes the project score positively in 20 out of 24 criteria. The subproject does not seem to lack the resources recently and the remaining gaps can be focused to make timely progress when required.
