search

OpenLiberty / open-liberty

Open Liberty is a highly composable, fast to start, dynamic application server runtime environment
https://openliberty.io
Eclipse Public License 2.0
1.15k stars 591 forks source link

API-47: MicroProfile Context Propagation 1.2 in OpenLiberty #8750

Closed njr-11 closed 3 years ago

njr-11 commented 5 years ago

Keep Open Liberty up-to-date with MicroProfile Context Propagation 1.2 as enhancements are added to the specification, and deliver under the mpContextPropagation-1.2 feature.

Upcoming feature overview: https://ibm.box.com/s/qo7dm71wm3yb2vy3sodlvapki84h5e9w

The issue that tracks the related openliberty.io doc (existing doc is still applicable): https://github.com/OpenLiberty/docs/issues/3562

atosak commented 4 years ago

List of Steps to complete or get approvals / sign-offs for Onboarding to the Liberty release (GM date)

Instructions:

TARGET COMPLETION DATE Before Development Starts or 8 weeks before Onboarding

kwsutter commented 4 years ago

UFO Review Held on Oct 23, 2020 Recording: https://ibm.box.com/s/ssajcoe4tdr0r3lvwudtoqlsfjndwchy

Summary: Good, solid review. Some voiced concerns about the changes going into MP Config 2.0 that forced some of these updates into Context Propagation 1.1. But, that does not affect MP Context Propagation 1.1 moving forward. They are just reacting to the direction of MP Config 2.0.

Minutes:

njr-11 commented 4 years ago

Slides have been updated per the above items. No changes are made regarding item 2. The MP Context Propagation 1.1 TCK has been demonstrated to run cleanly against both MP Config 2.0 (from MicroProfile 4.0) and MP Config 1.x from earlier MicroProfile versions. Instead of an autofeature, MP Context Propagation uses dynamic import package for access to MP Config interfaces. The resulting bundle does not enforce a version range on MP Config, allowing the same bundle to be used against any MP Config version.

njr-11 commented 3 years ago

The design call regarding item 2 was this morning and no issues were identified that would cause trouble for MP Context Propagation 1.1. GraphQL is in a different situation because it actually depends on mpConfig and needs to tolerate across versions. With MP Context Propagation, mpConfig is completely optional and so there is no tolerates version info for it in our features.

njr-11 commented 3 years ago

@donbourne please add the focalApproved:serviceability label.

Serviceability Approval Comment:

WAD -- does the WAD identify the most likely problems customers will see and identify how the feature will enable them to diagnose and solve those problems without resorting to raising a PMR? Have these issues been addressed in the implementation? We cover this in the Skill Transfer, not the WAD/UFO. But otherwise, yes, the implementation addresses the known serviceability issues.

Test and Demo -- As part of the serviceability process we're asking feature teams to test and analyze common problem paths for serviceability and demo those problem paths to someone not involved in the development of the feature (eg. L2, test team, or another development team). a) What problem paths were tested and demonstrated? MP Config 2.0 breaking change around empty list values that impacts some of our properties for setting default context types. b) Who did you demo to? Greg Watts, James Stephens, Kyle Aure c) Do the people you demo'd to agree that the serviceability of the demonstrated problem scenarios is sufficient to avoid PMRs for any problems customers are likely to encounter, or that L2 should be able to quickly address those problems without need to engage L3? Yes to the extent that it is possible. There is nothing we can do about the MP Config 2.0 breaking change that impacts us and other general users of MP Config. Possibly that could be something for the MP Config 2.0 feature to consider in their own serviceability review.

SVT -- SVT team is often the first team to try new features and often encounters problems setting up and using them. Note that we're not expecting SVT to do full serviceability testing -- just to sign-off on the serviceability of the problem paths they encountered. a) Who conducted SVT tests for this feature? Brian Hanczaryk, who determined that SVT was unnecessary due to exhaustive coverage in FAT b) Do they agree that the serviceability of the problems they encountered is sufficient to avoid PMRs, or that L2 should be able to quickly address those problems without need to engage L3? If SVT has any concerns with serviceability or otherwise with this feature then they will withhold their SVT approval.

Which L2 / L3 queues will handle PMRs for this feature? Ensure they are present in the contact reference file and in the queue contact summary, and that the respective L2/L3 teams know they are supporting it. Ask Don Bourne if you need links or more info. WAS L2: CET WAS L3: EEConcurrency, AsyncBeans

skasund commented 3 years ago

L2 has requested STE slides for this feature. The STE template can be found at the links below. You can use either one to create the education.

Slide Template: https://ibm.box.com/s/1an42g7zdgmaj84w7dft0indqfgi8ffm

Github Template: https://pages.github.ibm.com/WASL3/site/STE/about

Please upload the completed slides to the same 'STE Archive' BOX folder or provide me the Github link. Thanks!

njr-11 commented 3 years ago

@skasund the STE can be found here https://ibm.box.com/s/v4e7bx9jk7psdyb565mqz5foxsqux3ar

skasund commented 3 years ago

@njr-11 Thanks for the STE Slides

chirp1 commented 3 years ago

From discussions with Nathan, no doc updates are required by the ID team. Approving.