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
.
TWiki
>
Main Web
>
AutomationHome
>
AutomationMeetings
>
AutomationMeetings20111103
(04 Nov 2011,
BarysDubauski
)
(raw view)
---++ Date: Thursday, 03 November 2011<br /><br />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: * Recap of previous meeting AutomationMeetings20111027 * Main agenda items: * Continue review of the [[AutomationExecutionScenario][automation execution scenario]] * Review AutomatedTestExecutionScenario - an application of the generic scenario to the test domain * Discuss Agent/Worker sub-scenario. See examples in the AutomatedTestExecutionScenario * Plans for moving from scenario development to spec development * Previous Action Items: * DONE: PaulMcMahan, VaibhavSrivastava and PramodChandoria will document a test scenario for the next meeting * TODO: DavidBrauneis, CharlesRankin and MichaelFiedler will take this offline to investigate pros/cons of both approaches and report back to the workgroup. * Still pending * Next meetings: * 10 November - will get back on alternating AM/PM schedule. ---++ Minutes Attending: Michael Fiedler, Lucas Panjer, Bill Higgins, Dan Berg, Pramod Chandoria, Vaibhav Srivastava, Paul McMahan, Barys Dubauski, Rich Rakich, Bala Rajaraman, Sheehan Anderson, Eric Bordeau, John Arwe, David Brauneis I may have missed some folks, just let MichaelFiedler know or add your name directly in the wiki. * Primary discussion was around the [[AutomatedTestExecutionScenario][automated test execution scenario]]. * General agreement on the basics of scenario 1A and 1B. Division of steps in the scope of OSLC and out of scope were agreed on. * Clarification that a test in this scenario was equivalent to an automation plan. A test could consist of one or more test case executions * Brief discussion again on whether the automation request/result concept should be captured by 1 artifact or 2 * significant in determining how the consumer finds the result in a 3 artifact model * MichaelFiedler will setup the meeting next week to discuss. LucasPanjer agreed to participate in addition to DavidBrauneis and CharlesRankin. * Short discussion on contributions in the build scenario - test tool contributes back to build automation result after tests run * Final part of discussion was around the agent interaction scenarios 4 and 5. * Test scenarios indicate need for common protocol for agents to register with a test provider and receive jobs * Discussion on difficulty/impossibility of universal protocols * Nature of agent/server interactions across all types of automation tools extremely diverse * Some agreement that automation server-to-automation server interactions more in scope for OSLC. Servers acting in consumer/provider roles, perhaps simultaneously. * We will discuss this one more time in the build scenario. * Possible modification: discuss possibility that only optional agent registration is in scope. * Action items * TODO: MichaelFiedler will set up the meeting to discuss the request/result artifact issue. * DONE: BarysDubauski has posted basic execution scenario for the build domain on [[AutomatedBuildScenario][Automated build scenarios]] for comparison to test. * Next meeting: 10 November at 10AM Eastern US time Next meeting: Thursday, 10 November at 10 AM Eastern US time
E
dit
|
A
ttach
|
P
rint version
|
H
istory
: r3
<
r2
<
r1
|
B
acklinks
|
V
iew topic
|
Ra
w
edit
|
M
ore topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 04 Nov 2011 - 01:24:43 -
BarysDubauski
Main
Main Web
Create New Topic
Index
Search
Changes
Notifications
RSS Feed
Statistics
Preferences
Webs
Main
Sandbox
TWiki
Български
Cesky
Dansk
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
日本語
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Svenska
简体中文
簡體中文
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