Skip to main content

Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

COSMOS Resource Modeling Meeting Minutes

Minutes for Resource Modeling meetings.

Dec 5 2006

  • There have been several requests for a SML sample. ACTION: S Jerman to ask SML Group when sample is going to be available. [Done - they will investigate]
  • Progress report on Validation, IF inport/export: updates added to Wiki page.
  • Next meeting 5th Jan.

Jan 5 2007

Attendees: Mark, Valentina, Steve Discussion:

  • Progressing on validator. SML workshop may be delayed which will give more time.
  • Need to discuss schedule, interaction with other projects, deliverables at Face2Face. ACTION: Steve to add to agenda.
  • Discussed need for more samples.
  • Next meeting: 19th Jan

26 October 2007

  • Working on documenting interfaces and refining issues related to adopters with different data types
  • Working on putting together a demo of our CMDBf extensions

David whiteman.us.ibm.com 14:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

29 April 2008

Attendees: Rich Vasconi (IBM), Merri Jensen (SAS), Mark McCraw (SAS), Ali Mehregani (IBM), David Whiteman (IBM)

Discussion:

  • Gave brief overview of RM to Merri and Mark, members of the SDD team who are wanting to ramp up on SML
  • Started to go through open RM bug list in order to identify high priority items for i11
  • Ali and David agreed to split up the investigation and assignment of P1 and P2 defects to determine whether they need a different priority, should be closed, and should be i11 or future.
  • When the topic of bug 213635 came up, we discussed how the documentation for SML and other COSMOS areas would be delivered via Eclipse. David explained that the current intent is to provide the whole User Guide and Developer Guide as integrated with Eclipse help. Ali suggested that much of those documents, particularly in the UG, would not make sense in the Eclipse environment, since the actors wanting that information would not be using Eclipse. Rich mentioned that he has the ability to exclude parts of the doc from the Eclipse based online help. David said that it would be tricky to decide what to include and how to package it, and that we should look at how other Eclipse projects handle this. This might need to be revisited at a community call or summit.
  • We discussed ideas for restructuring our teams on the project. David suggested that if we were not going to be a toplevel project for 1.0, we can now establish the structure of our "workgroups". He mentioned some ideas he had, most notably breaking up the DC team into two, since there is a significant variance in the scope of that subproject. He also mentioned that part of this activity (or all of it) could be in finding people to lead the subteams that are actively involved in the work on those teams.
  • Ali expressed concern that more teams would mean more overhead in the project.

13 May 2008

Attendees: Merri Jensen(SAS), Mark McCraw (SAS), Ali Mehregani (IBM), David Whiteman (IBM)

Discussion:

  • No new status to report for RM deliverables, other than what is already on the status wiki page
  • David explained to Mary and Mark the current focus of the RM team, which is 1.1 spec compliance and bug fixing
  • Mark asked about the Tigerstripe integration, and David pointed out that is future work of interest for building SML resources from graphical templates

20 May 2008

Attendees: Ali (IBM), David (IBM), Mark (SAS), Jason (SAS)

Discussion:

  • David suggested SDD meeting should become ME meeting, and that it should precede the community call. Jason to send out new meeting time and subject.
  • David suggested possibly should do i11 design review, since we have somewhat gotten out of the practice of reviewing enhancement designs
  • Everyone feels comfortable with design process described on the cosmos-dev thread
  • Current status is up to date on week 3 build status page

27 May 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS)

Discussion:

  • Current status of deliverables
    • No status changes to report on RM items since last week
    • Ali pointed out that on the release plan, the dev cycle for this iteration ends on June 4, and the test cycle is 3 weeks. We all agreed that it makes sense to lengthen the dev cycle and shorten the test cycle, given that this is no longer the final iteration for 1.0 and that i11 has a focus on stability. TODO: David to raise this issue on community call. David and Ali to meanwhile ensure that high priority i11 items are completed, regardless of the end of the dev cycle.
  • John Arwe, SML spec lead, has provided us feedback on possible items for improvement in testing & implementation, and that should result in some additional bug reports forthcoming
  • Mark asked for areas where he could contribute to RM and get his feet wet. David suggested that he could look at bug 229890 as a good starting point for validation work, and Ali agreed. Several of the other defects are more related to Eclipse APIs, and bug 232078 is just grunt work to refactor the package names for our API guidelines. David mentioned that CA might be looking to get more involved with RM as well, given its synergy with CMDBf and their participation in the SML workgroup. TODO: Mark will look at 229890 this week and possibly others, and will work with David & Ali to better understand the workitems and to get pointers regarding the RM codebase.

3 June 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS)

Discussion:

  • Current status of deliverables
  • Ali said he would only be able to get to RM defects during the test cycle and would submit them as patches, due to his enhancement deliverables. These will all be marked as At Risk.
  • Mark is making progress on 229890.
  • David's remaining SML defects are At Risk due to other responsibilities as well.

10 June 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS), Merri (SAS), Jason (SAS)

Discussion:

8 July 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS), Hubert (IBM), Jason (SAS)

Discussion:

  • Introduced Mark to Hubert
  • Hubert is setting up SML development environment, and will also read SML specs
  • Mark is entering new defects today based on problems and observations he made during i11
  • Ali has completed PSVI rework on acyclic builders, validator, and tests. He is modifying document builders to be aware of SML-IF bindings.
  • David is working on the substitution builder for the target builders. He also is determining why target instance builder test is failing on IBM JRE. Apparently Xerces needs to be ahead of the JRE on the bootpath. David has the todo to confirm we are legally clear to prereq Xerces.


15 July 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Hubert (IBM)

Discussion:

Status:

  • Hubert looked at removing dependencies for SML MDR. He was able to reduce them, especially in the web services. After that we still have some Eclipse dependencies, most of which are EPL. One of them is an OSGi bundle with 3rd party code. Hubert is checking to see if we need an IPZilla for it. The build script has changed to not package the jars and plugins that are not needed.
  • Hubert is looking at locid feature. He has made some progress and is looking for some clarifications, from us and maybe John.
  • Ali met with Sandy Gao about the validators. He found that our schema bindings should be interpreted differently, that each schema binding should be treated as one validation set, done one at a time. Any references between the sets should be raised as invalid. This requires changes in our framework code. Ali is trying to minimize disruption to the data builders. The net is we might need to parse through a document multiple times.
  • David working on target & schematron validators, reworking to implement and reuse parsing of element type data, and developing new JUnits.
  • Overall status of PSVI work: on track
  • Hubert presented his thoughts on locid. We determined that there does need to be an implementation of it, that it's not simply coming up with an example. We determined more clarification is needed as to how the locale is specified, and whether substitution needs to be supported. Hubert will follow up with John Arwe to determine this. Status information is pending this decision.


22 July 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Hubert (IBM)

Discussion:

Status:

  • Hubert finished main work for locid. Needs to integrate with HEAD once the schematron code is activated there, and also to write JUnits. Hubert wanted to know what is next in priority. Ali advised moving to the base64 enhancement.
  • David will check with Sandy Gao as to the status of the spec (John Arwe is on vacation), as they seem to be wrapping up a new LC version, and whether the Interop will be based on that, and if xml:base support will be part of that. Also to find out status of Microsoft's interop testcases.
  • Ali finished most testcases for the work he has been doing. Next he will continue working through TestMainValidatorLC and TestSMLModelUnits. He will be pulled away for other business temporarily for 2 days this week.
  • David has finished work on the target validator, except for possible failures to some tests in TestMainValidatorLC (he moved on from that since it was unclear if those tests were valid, due to them being commented out). He is working now on the SchematronValidator.
  • PSVI work is still on track for our original estimate.

29 July 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Hubert (IBM), Mark M. (SAS)

Discussion:

Minutes:

  • David working on finishing target and schematron validators. Tests for TestMainValidator pass, but there are failures in the *LC tests. Also need to look at removing an extra builder that might be unnecessary. Will also need to run TPTP tests for i12 iteration.
  • Ali temporarily pulled away last week. Now back on RM work, working on existing testcases, expected to be done soon. Then he will move to new testcases.
  • David to contact MS (Kumar Pandit) to find out status of testcases for interop.
  • Hubert working on merging his locid changes with HEAD. Needs to test with latest code. Also working on base64 enhancement, work in progress.
  • Mark hasn't had much time to work on RM, mostly internal stuff. Wants to pitch in, and is open to doing some of the testcases necessary.
  • David reminded group of i13 designs needing to be written soon, but it's doubtful there are new designs required for RM.
  • Ali to contact Sandy Gao and John Arwe to determine whether our validator needs to support validating schemas that have no corresponding instances. PSVI only operates on instance data, so validating schema-only SML-IF files is difficult.

5 August 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Hubert (IBM), Mark M. (SAS)

Discussion:

Minutes:

  • Mark has updated to get the latest code. Hasn't had a chance to look at the JRE issues yet.
  • Ali: most old testcases passing. Creating new testcases for schema binding and other areas.
  • Hubert: last week worked on base 64, but having problems with testing. Also did some work merging the locid implementation with HEAD. Hubert encountering problems with running schematron validator. Ali was able to recreate these errors, so David will investigate, since he does not see the errors in his workspace. Hubert also reported that the validator is not correctly handling DTDs, which is needed for base 64 support. Ali suggested using Sandy Gao as a reference as to how DTDs should be handled.
  • David: working on finishing up target validator cases.
  • Ali: sent email to Sandy asking if schemaComplete must be set to true for validating SML-IF documents that don't contain SML instance documents.

12 August 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Hubert (IBM)

Discussion:

Minutes:

  • Hubert says requirements of locid and DTD (base64) are now clear. He's almost ready to check in his fixes. We need to watch for possible effects of sometimes setting validation to false, and whether we handle schemaComplete="false" (possibly a non-issue). Hubert needs to run testsuite to ensure no regression.
  • Sandy at yesterday's meeting suggested we create a DOM representation of the document. David was concerned about the loss of line number information. Ali pointed out that line number information is not a priority for the interop - this is strictly for our problems view in the UI.
  • Ali going through the testcases and making sure we have all the tests we need, based on the info received from MS. Also has updated properties files.
  • David needs to finish up the target validator, still has some cases that are failing in derivation and same name, after reworking the logic there. Also will change test plan generator to reflect changes made by Ali to metadata.

19 August 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Hubert (IBM)

Discussion:

  • status around the room

Minutes:

  • Hubert: bare-names feature (http://bugs.eclipse.org/243613) - should be an easy thing to complete; also working on problems with sml:ref. yesterday he found a problem with dangling pointers and fixed it. Hubert will be out of the office Wednesday thru next Monday. After bare-names work, he has to do some testcase cleanup, and also needs to change the code to use the latest version of schematron (basically removing some workarounds that were added for the previous version). He also has one item to work on for the DC subproject (http://bugs.eclipse.org/242766).
  • David: since last week's meeting, David has finished the target validator work and has completed some of the testcase changes necessary for the latest spec draft (http://bugs.eclipse.org/244466). Next he will update the export & new SML-IF file create wizard to comply with the latest changes, and will also go through a list of testcase defects that were sent to us by MS. At that point, he will begin work on xml:base (http://bugs.eclipse.org/238492).
  • Ali submitted his status via email, as he was unable to attend:
    • Completed:
    • Upcoming work:
      • There is currently a problem with the Identity validator he is trying to resolve.
      • Ali will be attending to the incomplete test cases for identity next. There are some cases here where code modification is needed.

26 August 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Hubert (IBM), Ali (IBM), John Arwe (IBM / SML workgroup), Paul (CA), Jack (CA)

Discussion:

Minutes:

  • Ali has completed all enhancements and testcases assigned to him.
  • Hubert has completed bare names support, and still needs to check in changes to support the latest Schematron version.
  • David is about 50% complete with the xml:base support. John mentioned that there is also a usage of xml:base in schema import resolution that needs to be handled. Referenced line 534 of the SML-IF spec.
  • This week, we need to fix the following defects in support of the interop, as mentioned in the i13 plan:
  • Ali presented an overview of SML, both to introduce the spec and its intent, and also to briefly discuss how the COSMOS implementation is structured.

2 September 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Paul (CA), Jack (CA)

Minutes:

  • We discussed the open i13 and untargeted defect list, of which there were 7. We went through each one and were able to quickly get the list down to 3, as we are retargeting the other 4 to i14. For the other three:
    • http://bugs.eclipse.org/237924 - we still need to determine the status of this one. it's at least "mostly done".
    • http://bugs.eclipse.org/238492 - also "mostly done", David will try to get this into good shape for i13 today
    • http://bugs.eclipse.org/244466 - this one is pending getting the schema and schematron files checked in. We are working on getting the approvals to do this. We hope to be able to close this one out today, since this will make a huge difference in the quality of the i13 build for Resource Modeling.
  • Jack and Paul talked about additional CA resources becoming available soon to work on SML tooling, and asked for good starting points to get their feet wet on it. David mentioned that http://bugs.eclipse.org/243026 would be interesting to check out if it's not already resolved. There are other UI concerns that haven't been given attention of late, due to the recent focus on the validator. The additional people that would work on SML have a UI background, so that would be a good fit for them. David to put together a list of defects to start with, and we can discuss this at next week's meeting, since the CA people should be available by that point.

9 September 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Naveen (CA), Ramesh (CA), Jack (CA), Paul (CA), Monica (CA)

Agenda:

Minutes:

  • David went through the SML Overview document again for the new folks
  • The new folks have setup bugzilla accounts, etc. already and are working on setting up Eclipse
  • We decided that the best way to get them started is to work on https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=175382, splitting up the work among them. David to answer questions on this bug through bugzilla and general RM/SML questions can be handled by email or on the next RM call

16 September 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Naveen (CA), Ramesh (CA), Jack (CA), Paul (CA), Monica (CA)

Minutes:

  • bug 243026 - Naveen and Ramesh making progress; they have the debug environment working
  • Monica still coming up to speed
  • Next bug to tackle is writing the manual tests for the SML tooling. Srinivas a good resource to consult with on this.
  • We discussed the process for making doc updates, whether we send them to Adriane/Pam or make them directly. Not clear at this time which approach we will take, although it would seem better to send them to Adriane/Pam.

23 September 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Naveen (CA), Ramesh (CA), Monica (CA), Jack (CA)

Minutes:

  • David to transfer http://bugs.eclipse.org/243026 to Naveen so he can mark as fixed
  • All defects to go into HEAD and COSMOS 1.0 streams, pending David's approval
  • http://bugs.eclipse.org/196213 - monica having trouble, getting error with test sml-if file - david suggested being sure she launches test workspace, and that she uses one of the files from the validation tests plugin
  • http://bugs.eclipse.org/175382 - pointed Naveen to manual JUnit tests. others will help with this.
  • Jack to email assignments for the week, focusing on the following defects as best starting points:
    • 237829 - Error pane cuts off useful info and buttons by default.
    • 176187 - SML-IF import locator failure should be a warning, not an error.
    • 225165 - Import does not handle xs:any data in <model> element or extra user attributes.

30 September 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Monica (CA), Paul (CA)

Minutes:

  • Monica fixed 196213. Since then, she has been out and is now looking at the next defect.
  • Apparently there is a holiday in India because those folks did not attend

7 October 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Jack (CA), Naveen (CA), Ramesh (CA)

Minutes:

  • David to review SML-IF manual tests and check in
  • Ramesh deciding between 222225 and 176187
  • Naveen looking at 225165
  • David handled questions about those specific issues

14 October 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Jack (CA), Naveen (CA), Ramesh (CA)

Minutes:

  • David has multiple bug fixes to review
  • David clarified some issues with 225165
  • Next two to be assigned 176187 and 209871
  • Ramesh mentioned finding other errors when looking at 176187. David suggested opening defects for any other problems found.
  • Jack asked David to review Dev Guide so we can identify areas that need updating. David said he would try to this week.
  • David suggested that frequent checkins should be made of the docs per Eclipse process. Jack mentioned it's difficult due to a dearth of committers.

21 October 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Jack (CA), Naveen (CA), Ramesh (CA)

Minutes:

  • Multiple defects have patches still waiting for David to review and commit
  • Jack made it clear that CMDBf work takes precedence over RM work
  • Also, documentation work takes precedence over RM work
  • Jack issued a reminder that all CA changes should include a copyright addition (new files) or modification (existing files)
  • David to change target of 250781 to future
  • David answered questions about 225165 and 176187

28 October 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Jack (CA)

Minutes:

7 November 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Jack (CA), Ramesh (CA), John (IBM)

Minutes:

  • Ramesh asked for guidance on the mechanics and location of creating a JUnit test for http://bugs.eclipse.org/225165. David showed him how to create the test method using TPTP, and indicated the breakdown of the various SML plugins so he would know where to put the test.
  • He also asked for the location of encode/decode methods to help with http://bugs.eclipse.org/254563. David suggested that they should go in the same plugin as the import/export logic, which in this case is the repository plugin.
  • We discussed the reconciliation taxonomy (RTx) which was newly contributed to the RM project. Jason Losh of SAS had indicated interest, but did not attend the call. We talked about the process by which changes could be introduced to the RTx. Some process steps are built-in to this being an Eclipse project: committer can check in changes, and changes from other folks should be contributed by attaching a patch to a bugzilla defect or enhancement. Some steps in the process are up to our discretion. Since we want to have some careful control over changes, we will want to discuss each change in the RM calls so we can get agreement on the change before committing, and an RM committer would then apply the patch to CVS. To help identify the changes in bugzilla, we can make use of the whiteboard field to use a special token such as "rtx". Also, we might consider having a wiki page to provide a "cover sheet" for all RTx related activity, with links to relevant bugzillas (or a query link to all bugs with rtx in the whiteboard).
  • John indicated that he would like to discuss the process further offline so he and Mark J. could better understand Eclipse and COSMOS processes and how they can be applied to RTx work.
  • We discussed that publicity will be key, as this can potentially be an impetus to increased project participation.

TODOs:

  • John to follow up with Mark J. about attending next Tuesday's meeting
  • David to contact Jason to ensure someone will be there to represent SDD's concerns
  • Jack to ask Jimmy who would be the best CA person to begin participating
Retrieved from "https://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=COSMOS_Resource_Modeling_Meeting_Minutes&oldid=127578"

This page was last modified 11:48, 7 November 2008 by Eclipsepedia anonymous user Unnamed Poltroon.

Back to the top