Date: Thursday, 03 November 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:

• Recap of previous meeting AutomationMeetings20111103

* Main agenda items:

• Continue review of the automation execution scenario
  • Review AutomatedBuildScenario - an application of the generic scenario to the build domain provided by BarysDubauski
• Report to workgroup on artifact discussion (Automation Request/Result vs single AutomationJob? )
  • DavidBrauneis, CharlesRankin, LucasPanjer and MichaelFiedler met to discuss
  • Summary
    • Some existing implementations represent the concepts with 1 artifact, some with 2
    • 2 artifacts provides the most flexibility
    • implementations with only 1 artifact internally can represent the information in that artifact as 2 separate OSLC artifacts, the request and result.
    • keep the request as simple as possible. Minimal info to request an automation:
      • state
      • desired state (for cancel)
      • input parameters required for automation execution
      • link to result (when it becomes available)
      • link to automation plan
      • requester
      • time requested
      • possibly "how requested" (manual, scheduled, programmatically)
    • originally, discussed this being transient. Now recommended persistent. Implementation may expose info available in 1..n places as 2 OSLC artifacts.
• Discuss Agent/Worker sub-scenario.
  • Proposal to limit scenario to optional agent registration
  • Value of a limited scenario
• Plans for moving from scenario development to spec development
• Previous Action Items:
  • NA
• Next meetings:
  • Discuss meeting time
  • 17 November - Michael Fiedler will be out - volunteer to run the meeting?

Minutes

Attending: Michael Fiedler, Pete Steinfeld, Max Vohlken, Barys Dubauski, Pramod Chandoria, Thomas Spatzier, Robert Elves, Vaibhav Srivastava, John Arwe, Paul McMahan? , Bala Rajaraman, Dan Berg, Rich Rakich, Scarlett Li

* Main topic of conversation was the AutomatedBuildScenario

• Basic build scenario was straightforward - maps well to the generic AutomationExecutionScenario
• More emphasis in these scenarios on updating the automation result after execution completion than the test scenario
  • many potential contributors of status (test, globalization, project management, etc) to the build result once it is in a completed state.
  • discussion of whether these status updates should be captured with states or with a tagging mechanism
    • the change management spec uses dc:subject as a simple tagging facility. Propose Automation does the same
  • discussion of the "composition" build scenarios
    • another example of chaining or orchestration of automations. Potentially very complex in the build case.
    • workgroup agreed again that orchestration is beyond an initial specification. However, keeping these scenarios in mind is important. Automation results, in particular, must enable these scenarios.
    • brief discussion on what might be needed in the Automation Plan to support this.
      • Automation "execution type" is a possibility. Indicate sequential vs parallel execution
      • Links to other Automation Plans are another possibility

* TODO: Dan Berg will help organize a deployment or DevOps? scenario * TODO: Finish discussion on agent or worker registration

• This was briefly introduced - there are test scenarios for this. Are there others?

* TODO: Michael Fiedler will summarize the Automation Request/Result vs Automation Job investigation on the mailing list * Workgroup administration

• Michael Fiedler will be out next week. Looking for a volunteer to run the meeting, or possibly cancel it.

Next meeting: Thursday, 17 November at 1 PM Eastern US time