This wiki is locked. Future workgroup activity and specification development must take place at our new wiki. For more information, see this blog post about the new governance model and this post about changes to the website.

Date: Thursday, 27 October 2011

Time: 1:00 PM Eastern US (contact MichaelFiedler if you'd like to participate)

The Automation meetings alternate times each meeting to accomodate the global team.

Agenda

* Reoccurring agenda items:

* Main agenda items:
  • Continue review of the automation execution scenario
    • Overall flow - applicability to workgroup member scenarios
    • Issues with passing required parameter/environment information during Automation Job creation
  • If time allows, discuss contributions to automation results
  • Plans for moving from scenario development to spec development
  • Previous Action Items:
    • NA
  • Next meetings:
    • 3 November

Minutes

Attending: Michael Fiedler, Dave Brauneis Bill Higgins, Daniel Berg, Paul McMahan? , Vaibhav Srivastava, Charles Rankin, Rich Rakich
Let MichaelFiedler know if anyone's name is missing.

  • Discussion focused on automation execution scenario
    • Need some additional context to evaluate scenario completeness. Put it in context of build, deploy, test, provision.
      • TODO: PaulMcMahan, VaibhavSrivastava and PramodChandoria will document a test scenario for the next meeting
      • Simple scenario showing a single test execution flow - what inputs needed, what results would look like in terms of contributions
      • Possibly a secondary scenario showing automation chaining. Example: test tool consumes a build automation and starts a test execution automation
    • Re-visited the discussion on whether and intermediate Automation Request artifact is needed.
      • Artifact would link to the Automation Plan it was created for, link to the Automation Results for the job
      • Some members felt a single Automation Job could not capture all aspects of requesting an automation and recording the results.
      • Automation consumers may not have all of the knowledge required to fully create a job. Example: Build requester could have no knowledge of build contributions such as JUnit tests
      • TODO: DavidBrauneis, CharlesRankin and MichaelFiedler will take this offline to investigate pros/cons of both approaches and report back to the workgroup.
    • Discussed the environment/parameter issue documented in the scenario
      • Strong sentiment to keep it simple initially.
      • Alternative discussed: similar to what AM does, expose resource shapes generated dynamically based on registered artifact types. Complex.
      • Alternative discussed: inputs are a simple combination of dcterms-like attributes and possibly an opaque attribute for arbitrary input data.
    • Discussed security aspects of the scenario
      • General agreement it should be explicitly out of scope for the specification, but issues around identity and authentication w.r.t automation should be acknowledged.
  • Discussed topics for next workgroup meeting
    • Results of test automation scenario elicitation
    • Agent/Worker sub-scenario
    • Beginning to document artifacts and early specification drafts.

Next meeting: Thursday, 3 November at 1PM Eastern US time

Topic revision: r2 - 27 Oct 2011 - 20:44:12 - MichaelFiedler
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Copyright � by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use
Ideas, requests, problems regarding this site? Send feedback