SA1 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: DJRA1.6.1
Title: DJRA1.6.1 – Integration Work Plan and Status Report Doc. identifier: EMI_Integration_Plan-v0.5.doc
Author(s): André Giesler, Morris Riedel Due date: 14/01/11

Identification of the reviewer
Name: M Sgaravatto Affiliation: INFN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: SA1

Review date mm/dd/yyyy
Author(s) revision date mm/dd/yyyy
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

Attach the reviewed document to the deliverable page, put here a link

General comments

General comments ============

Not always clear what is the target of this workplan. It looks like the goal is to cover both integration and interoperability: ok. Is the goal of addressing just new stuff (i.e. added in EMI-1 for the first time ?). E.g. it is mentioned somewhere about also testing BES or SRM compliance, but then there are not clear plans defined.

All the "integration and interoperability" scenarios relevant for EMI-1 (i.e. the ones that should be addressed and should be part of this workplan) should be much better clearly identified. E.g. section 4 lists some objectives which are clearly not in scope (e.g. log analyzer). Not fully clear to me why some scenarios are classified as "integration" (in this case the specifications of the components that get integrated) would help. E.g. in the "support of file protocol in DPM" it is not clear to me which are the components to be integrated) CREAM-CE integration with Argus is missing. Concerning the integration with Argus, I was aware that there were plans to implement it also for (some part of) ARC for EMI-1. I don't know if this is still foreseens (in this case it should be mentioned in the document)

Apart from some general considerations applicable to all scenarios, the plans for the specific scenarios to be considered are just referenced ([R17], [R18] [R19]) but they are not described at all in the document. At least they should be briefly explained. And the plans provided in the external links in most of the cases are still to be fully defined.

Not too clear what are the responsabilities for testing integration and interoperability. In particular: who is going to provide these tests ? Who is going to run them ?

The role of ETICS for integration/interoperability tests (mentioned somewhere in the document) is not too clear. Is it supposed to be used only for unit tests ?

Additional recommendations (not affecting the document content, e.g. recommendation for future work)

Detailed comments on the content

Note 1: The reviewers must list here any observation they want to track explicitly and that require interaction with the authors
Alternatively all changes must be listed in the document itself using Word change tracking features (if you use Word)
Note 2: These comments have to be explicitly addressed by the authors and the action taken must be clearly described

Page Section Observations Is Addressed?
1 xx x.y Sequence of comments and replies separated by twiki signature and date    
2   Section 1.1 "This document is a specialization of the general EMI Development and Testing Plan"
Please add a reference
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Reference added
3   Section 1.2 "The status report in the first cycle is replaced by an overview of the state of the art."
I would rephrase it into something like: "Since we are considering the first cycle, an overview of the state of the art is given"
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Added as proposed
4   Section 1.2 "this section a description of the integration .." -->
"this section GIVES a description of the integration .."
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
corrected
5   Section 2 As far as I understand (at least this is what I was also told for my deliverable) the Executive Summary should be a sort of summary of the whole document. So here you should report (copy) the most important text from the several chapters. Chapter x describes y, chapter z reports abc, etc. is instead something for the introduction
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Has been re-structured.
6   Section 3 "EMI-0, represent in principle the same development or production status as before EMI and can be considered as the latest state-of-the-art."
I am afraid there was some confusion wrt the content of EMI-0. Some teams defined here the production version. Some other teams defined here a release candidate for EMI-1
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Added that some teams used EMI-0 already as release candidate: "In some cases product teams defined already release candidates for EMI-1 in their EMI-0 configurations."
7   Section 3 When discussing integration and interoperability, please define their meaning
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Added a short description and a link to detailed chapter: "Integration refers to a setup where one software component inherently uses another component to provide a dedicated functionality. Interoperability within this EMI task means that one component is interoperable with another if both integrating the same interface. Chapter 5 provides a more detailed introduction to integration and interoperability strategies in this task."
8   Section 3 "and in turn integration tests are either identified or created in order to provide means to verify the integration work."
Where are these tests (identified or created) are described ?
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Deleted phrase about integration tests.
9   Section 3 "Also, these component integration work areas are in-line with the EMI architecture that in turn provides the foundation for the integration work that makes sense within the broader EMI high level ecosystem."
Not too clear to me what it is meant with this sentence
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Deleted the whole sentence
10   Section 3 "It should be reported how these matrices were produced (asking the PTs I guess. Did you also check the workplan documents ?)
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Added description how we got the information: "Since project start we have worked on the integration and interoperability matrices and their continuous updates by inquiring the individual product teams and checking their working plans."
11   Section 4 Please list here all and only the objectives in scope with this document. E.g. log analyzer I guess is out of scope and should be removed. E.g. integration between CREAM CE (CREAM and CEMon) and Argus is missing. For each objective specified, please specify if it is an integration or interoperability one and specify why (e.g. please explain why file protocol support in data management is a integration/interoperability objective to be covered: this is not clear to me). If it is an integration one, please specify which are the components to be integrated.
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
   
12   Section 4 Infra and Security area are not covered. If there are no objectives in this area, it should be specified
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Added for both areas: "No objectives identified for EMI-1 in this area."
13   Section 4.2.2 "The implementations will be integrated in the ETICS system. The interoperability between components using GLUE as an information model will be tested by standard compliance tests which have to be defined within an integration testing plan.""
What does it mean?
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Added reference to detailed description: "Chapter 6 provides a more detailed approach of the GLUE testing plans concerning EMI components."
14   Section 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 IMHO the "platforms" column doesn't make too sense, since the platforms for EMI-1 haven't been decided yet
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
no, yes The platform information was demanded by the template of the document. But a hint was added that the plaform column shows only the state of the art and not the EMI-1 status: "The tables in the following subsections provide information about the concerned EMI components, the planned improvement (for cross area), the current development status, the deadline of the task, and the destination platforms. However, the platform column shows which platforms are currently supported by the affected component. It had not yet been decided which platforms have to be supported in EMI-1 at the time of composing this document."
15   Section 4.3.2 Status for WMS should be "in development"
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Changed to "In development".
16   Section 5 Plan for testing should be much more defined. E.g. Will there be a single testing team or multiple teams ? What is the composition of these teams ? Who is responsible for the tasks defined in section 5.1.3 ?
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Added to 5.3.1: "These steps will be performed in close collaboration between JRA1.7, who will coordinate the testing process, the affected product teams, and the EMI-testbed administrators. ". Additionally, I added responsibles to the steps in the list.
17   Section 5.1 "which are in turn could be aggregated " --> "which in turn could be aggregated "
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Corrected
18   Section 5.1.3 "... following Steps" --> "following steps"
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Corrected
19   Section 5.4 Plans for this standard compliance testing are quite vague. E.g. not clear when this will be done and who will be in charge of the process
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
no
This section is rather an overview of the standard compliance testing for EMI-1. The given text in template was also very vague ("This section describes the scope and goals of the standard compliance activity and the adopted testing methods and tools") and I don't have an idea what to write here more since compliance testing for the components is described in more detail in chapter 6.
20   Section 5.4.1 "An overview of The EMI ..." --> "An overview of the EMI ..."
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Corrected
21   Section 6 Some details of the integration strategies for the considered use cases should be reported in this document, instead of simply specify the external references ([R17], [R18], [R19])
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
No. Too much information
Of course, it is nice to have all the information in the document. However, the defining of the testing strategies is an ongoing process and the amount of information in the referenced Wiki pages is big. It was allowed to us to reference ever-changing information in Wiki pages to the deliverable.
22   Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 I am afraid that Platforms column should be removed, since the platform for EMI-1 has still to be decided. Also the specified configurations I am afraid are not defined yet (I guess you used the EMI-0 ones)
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
No and yes
To description of the target platform was given by the deliverable's template. We were asking the product teams for the current platforms. Nevertheless, it's not yet decided which platforms will be used in EMI-1. So, I added: "The target platforms (It is not yet decided which target platforms will be used for EMI-1 at this stage, so the currently available platforms are listed.)"
23   Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 "Etics project configurations" --> "Etics configurations"
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Corrected
24   Section 8 Reference [R20] is wrong
-- MassimoSgaravatto - 18-Jan-20111
yes
Section 8 has been deleted

Any other modification, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc must be done directly in the document using tracked changes or similar mechanisms that allows the authors to identify which correction is suggested.

-- FloridaEstrella - 18-Oct-2010

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who CommentSorted ascending
Texttxt review-sgaravatto.txt r1 manage 6.3 K 2011-01-18 - 14:37 UnknownUser original review comments in txt
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r9 < r8 < r7 < r6 < r5 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r9 - 2011-02-08 - AGieslerExternal
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    EMI All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2020 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback