Networking-bagpipe Scorecard¶
Neutron integration¶
N0. Does the project use the Neutron REST API or relies on proprietary backends?
No. The repo relies on https://github.com/Orange-OpenSource/bagpipe-bgp, which is released under the Apache license.
N1. Does the project integrate/use neutron-lib?
Yes. So far the import ratio is ~13%. The neutron-lib periodic integration is not available, but in progress.
N2. Do project members actively contribute to help neutron-lib achieve its goal?
No.
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?
The team proactively adopted L2 extensions where required, as shown by commits below.
N4. How does the project provide networking services? Does it use modular interfaces as provided by the core platform?
Yes.
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.
networking-bagpipe contains (a) a driver for networking-bgpvpn, and (b) an ML2 mech driver to deliver Neutron L2 that (1) is not necessary for the BGPVPN part and (2) does not require an other ML2 mech driver to deliver Neutron ML2.
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).
No.
D3. Does the project have a releasenotes tox target, functional and continously working? Provide proof.
No.
D4. Describe the types of documentation available: developer, end user, administrator, deployer.
Just deployer documentation.
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).
No.
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?
No, and no DB migration and sync validation even though the mech driver has DB migrations (last one available for the Liberty release). The roadmap is to get rid of DB models, and instead use the VXLAN type driver and derive BGPVPN identifiers from that, in a way similar to IETF draft draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay.
C4. Does the project have CI for fullstack coverage?
No.
C5. Does the project have CI for Tempest coverage? If so, specify nature (API and/or Scenario).
Non-voting and experimental.
C6. How does a project validate upgrades on a continuous basis? Does the project require or support CI for Grenade coverage?
No evidence of Grenade testing.
C7. Does the project provide multinode CI?
No.
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.
Does the project integrate with OpenStack Proposal Bot for requirements updates?
Yes.
Stable backports¶
S1. Does the project have stable branches and/or tags? Provide history of backports.
Yes. Stable liberty, mitaka and newton look aligned with Neutron’s.
Client library¶
L1. If the project requires a client library, how does it implement CLI and API bindings?
No.
Scorecard¶
Scorecard |
|
|---|---|
N0 | N |
|
N1 | Y |
|
N2 | N |
|
N3 | Y |
|
N4 | Y |
|
N5 | N |
|
D1 | Y |
|
D2 | N |
|
D3 | N |
|
D4 | Y |
|
C1 | N |
|
C2 | Y |
|
C3 | N |
|
C4 | N |
|
C5 | N |
|
C6 | N |
|
C7 | N |
|
C8 | Y |
|
R1 | Y |
|
R2 | Y |
|
R3 | Y |
|
R4 | Y |
|
S1 | Y |
|
N |
|
Final remarks: neutron-lib integration, more documentation and better coverage are the main gaps identified in this project.
