candidate: infra.middleware_ocpv (formerly infra.ocpv_lab)

alisonlhart commented 1 year ago

Candidate Name

infra.middleware_ocpv

Link to Github Repo

https://github.com/redhat-cop/middleware_ocpv

Review Due By

Jan 24

CHECKLIST

Business Checks:

Content Viability

[x] must support a “business-viable” use case
[x] isn’t just a demo
[x] is production-ready, as in able to run in Ansible Controller “as-is”
[x] provides a solution an end-to-end automation use case and brings value to our customers

Content Duplication

[x] use case addressed by the content isn’t covered by another validated content collection already - to the best of our knowledge

Technical Checks:

Content Conformity

[x] is packaged as a content collection - see the Collection Requirements Checklist
[x] is YAML only (Exception: if plugin(s) included are necessary for this specific use-case and are not generic enough for a certified collection)
[x] if there is a plugin(s), it is not a duplicate of something from a certified or supported collection - to the best of our knowledge
[x] supported plugin/module used in a validated role is noted as a dependency

Content Compliance

[x] no known policy or legal reason for why the content shouldn’t be published
[x] README contains information about the purpose of the collection and how to install it
[x] README contains a link to the collection license file
[x] README contains general usage and requirements information such as required versions of ansible-core and Python, and other required libraries or SDKs
[x] Repo is self-certified with the OpenSSF Best Practices and has the OpenSSF Best Practices Badge
[x] Has 2 or more active maintainers listed in a CODEOWNERS file.
[x] Has an approved OSI license
[x] Content falls logically into one of these domains - infra, security, network, cloud, edge
[x] (If internal content) Content has been or is being migrated into the redhat-cop Github org

Content Testing/Validation

[x] runs ansible-lint “Production” profile in an active Github workflow on the repository
[x] passes the ansible-lint “Production” profile
[x] ansible-lint.yml file (if present) only contains justified ignores - with a comment explaining the need for each ignore

alisonlhart commented 1 year ago

Candidate namespace needs to be one of the generic namespaces - infra, security, network, cloud, edge. My suggestion would be infra or cloud.

alisonlhart commented 1 year ago

@arnav3000 For review at your availability. :)

arnav3000 commented 1 year ago

ansible-lint passes the test however it only runs in offline mode and the file .ansible-lint excludes running on playbooks/roles.

alisonlhart commented 1 year ago

Requirements.yml does not include ansible.posix, which is listed in the galaxy.yml file as a dependency.

RanabirChakraborty commented 1 year ago

Hello @arnav3000 As the collection requires an OpenShift token, we can't run ansible-lint in online mode. That's why we opted for offline mode.

arnav3000 commented 1 year ago

Hi @RanabirChakraborty , Can you run the ansible lint tests again without exclusions. Also if there are specific files that needs to be excluded in ansible lint, please provide the justification.

RanabirChakraborty commented 1 year ago

@arnav3000 I have modified the ansible-lint it should be fine now. @alisonlhart I have included ansible.posix in Requirements.yml Please review the collection once the PR gets merged.

arnav3000 commented 1 year ago

Hi @RanabirChakraborty, Can you also add the business justification or a use case to the repository ?

RanabirChakraborty commented 1 year ago

@arnav3000 @alisonlhart added the use case part inside the repository. Thanks!

alisonlhart commented 1 year ago

Remaining items:

OpenSSF Badge
Use one of the validated content allocated namespaces - infra, network, cloud, security, edge. Rename any references to middleware_automation to the appropriate namespace.
Migrate content into the redhat-cop Github Org. Open a repository management issue here. Reach out to @Andrew Block in RH slack with any migration questions.
Change name to ocpv vs ocpv_lab per ACoP's recommendation. @RanabirChakraborty

alisonlhart commented 1 year ago

Closing candidate. The maintainers do not want to rename the collection downstream with one of the allocated validated content namespaces. Will reopen in the future if desired!

RanabirChakraborty commented 9 months ago

Hello @alisonlhart @arnav3000 , We have already fulfilled all the requirements and you can now check the repo - https://github.com/redhat-cop/ocpv_lab. Can you please review it now. Thanks!

alisonlhart commented 9 months ago

All requirements are now passing! :confetti_ball: I will bring this to the ACoP call today.

alisonlhart commented 9 months ago

I brought this to the ACoP call today asking for additional review. The official sign-off date is Jan 24 for any additional review comments or suggestions from ACoP.

chynasan commented 9 months ago

When presenting this to the ACoP for review, there was concern raised that this is only for demo use, which does not meet the standards for the checklist.

chynasan commented 8 months ago

The collection maintainers have updated the name and documentation for this collection and were hoping to have this re-reviewed. I am going to follow-up with the Community of Practice to request additional review.

chynasan commented 8 months ago

Presented to the ACoP as a request for re-review Feb 21st.

alisonlhart commented 8 months ago

No additional input from the ACoP on this. Candidate has been approved and can be uploaded to Automation Hub at your convenience @RanabirChakraborty. If you do not currently have access to the infra namespace, please reach out to me on slack and we'll get that set up.

ansible / validated-content-discussion