2024-08-12 Meeting notes

Owned by Jenn Colt
Last updated: Aug 14, 2024 by Taras Spashchenko

Date

Attendees 

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

Taras Spashchenko is next

Reminder:  Please copy/paste the Zoom chat into the notes.  If you miss it, this is saved along with the meeting recording, but having it here has benefits.

5-10 minLiaison Updates

Maccabee Levine

Tod Olson

Jakub Skoczen

Craig McNally

Jenn Colt 

  • CC: Maccabee Levine
    • Chris Spaulding replaced Mike Burrell as Co-chair alongside Simeon
    • Patrick gave a dev advocate update
    • Long discussion about FY25 budget, including increased AWS costs
    • CC approved continuing new expenses, including developer advocate role
    •  
  • PC: Tod Olson
    • Developer Advocate update, included this good observation:

      • Updates on documentation and the necessity of cultural changes to improve good citizen behavior around documentation.

  • RMS Group:
    • No RMS update due to meeting cancellation
  • Security Team: 
    • Introduction of new security team members
  • Tri-council Application Formalization:  
    • Progress on organizing modules into applications
1 minUpcoming MeetingsAll
  •  - Dedicated Discussion: Topic TBD
  •  - Regular TC Meeting
  •  - Dedicated Discussion: Architectural decision making
  •  - Regular TC Meeting
5-15 minTCR Board ReviewAll

  • Overview of TCR 42:

    • The meeting focused on reviewing TCR (Technical Council Review) 42, which involves evaluating a specific module for approval.
    • The presenters of TCR 42 admitted to being slightly behind schedule due to personal reasons, which led to a delay in finalizing the review.
    • A few outstanding issues were identified during the review, including a missing Product Council (PC) approval and an update to the module’s README file, which the development team had committed to updating.

  • Module Review and Approval Process:

    • A critical discussion point was whether the TC (Technical Council) should proceed with approving the module before the PC has conducted its review. The standard process usually requires PC’s functionality review before TC’s technical evaluation.
    • It was noted that the back-end of this module had already been approved in a previous meeting, raising questions about the consistency and timing of the approval process.
    • Concerns were raised about the implications of approving a module without PC’s review, potentially setting a precedent that might affect the governance process.

  • Specific Issues Identified:

    • Stripe Version: There was a discrepancy regarding the Stripe version being used. The TCR documentation initially stated that Stripe 9.2 was required, but the development team clarified they were using version 9.1.4. This was flagged as an issue but was deemed not significant enough to block approval.
    • Product Council Approval: The TCR review included a checkbox for PC approval, which had not been completed. The team discussed whether to wait for PC to review the module before moving forward with TC approval.

  • Suggestions and Next Steps:

    • It was suggested that the presenter follow up with the PC to expedite their review, allowing for the TCR to be finalized.
    • There was also a suggestion to develop more comprehensive documentation or guidelines for TCR reviewers, particularly around areas like license checking and accessibility, to ensure consistency and clarity in the review process.
    • The decision was made to hold off on approving TCR 42 until the outstanding issues were resolved, particularly the PC approval.

  • Overall Reflection:

    • The discussion highlighted the importance of following the established process for module approval, ensuring that both technical and functional evaluations are completed before any final decisions are made.
    • There was a recognition that the process might need to be clarified or adjusted to prevent similar issues in the future, particularly around the coordination between TC and PC reviews.
5-15 min

Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates

All

  • Static Code Analysis Subgroup

    • Recent Activity:
      • The static code analysis subgroup recently held a meeting, though attendance was low, with only two members (Julian and another member) participating.
      • The primary focus of the meeting was to discuss improvements to the subgroup's acceptance criteria, which led to some disagreements within the group.
    • Scope and Definition Challenges:
      • A significant part of the discussion revolved around defining the scope of the static code analysis subgroup. There was some confusion and disagreement about what exactly falls under "static code analysis."
      • Areas of Debate:
        • Inclusion of Unit and Integration Tests: One of the contentious points was whether unit tests and integration tests should be included in the static code analysis subgroup’s scope. Some members felt that these tests are closely related to static code analysis because they assess the functionality of the code, while others argued that these tests are not static in nature and should be considered separately.
        • Definition of Static Code Analysis: The discussion also touched on what constitutes static code analysis itself. Traditionally, this includes identifying code smells, code duplication, and security issues through tools like SonarQube. The subgroup is trying to determine whether its scope should be broadened to include other forms of testing and analysis.
    • Next Steps:
      • It was concluded that these discussions should be brought to the broader Technical Council (TC) for further input and clarification. The subgroup recognized that defining the scope is crucial before making any progress on their tasks.
      • The group decided to continue these discussions asynchronously (via Slack or email) and revisit the topic in the next TC meeting when more members could be present to provide input.

    Developer Documentation Subgroup

    • Ongoing Progress:

      • The developer documentation subgroup is focused on creating a comprehensive developer manual that will serve as a key resource for both new and existing developers.
      • The subgroup reported that they have successfully established the framework and strategy for the manual. The next phase involves populating the manual with content, a task that will require significant community involvement.

    • Challenges and Focus Areas:

      • Community Involvement: The subgroup identified that one of their biggest challenges is securing active participation from the community in maintaining and updating the documentation. They emphasized that without widespread community engagement, the developer manual project is unlikely to succeed.
      • Roles and Responsibilities: The subgroup is working on identifying different roles that could contribute to the documentation efforts. They noted that not all tasks require deep technical knowledge, and there are opportunities for non-developers to assist with the project.
      • Strategic Meetings: Jeremy and Maccabee, key members of the subgroup, have been organizing meetings with various stakeholders to discuss how to effectively involve developers and other community members in the documentation process. They have already met with a couple of key figures (Kalila and Olamide) to gather initial feedback and plan to continue these meetings.

    • Implementation Strategy:

      • Initial Steps: The subgroup has started filling in some sections of the manual with content that needs to be written from scratch. This content will serve as a foundation as they work to gather and migrate existing documentation into the new framework.
      • Tools and Resources: The subgroup has established several resources to help manage the documentation project, including a work management board to track issues and a Confluence space dedicated to the developer manual. They have also created Slack channels to facilitate communication and collaboration among contributors.

    • Future Plans:

      • The subgroup is currently focusing on increasing visibility and awareness of the documentation project. They plan to reach out to team leads and other key contributors to gather more feedback and encourage participation.
      • The long-term goal is to establish a sustainable process for maintaining the developer manual, ensuring that it remains up-to-date and relevant as the project evolves.


1 minRFCs

All

Reminder(s)

  • Review of open items, such as the need for decision log records and the application of the "Go" RFC.
1 minDecision LogAll

Need to log decisions for the following:  (see above)

  • Discussions on the necessity of a Wednesday meeting to address the OST process and involvement of Sysops.
10-15 min

Officially Supported Technologies (OST)

All

Check Recurring Calendar

    • Context and Key Issues

      • The discussion centered on the upcoming migration to JDK 21 and how the SysOps team should be involved in the decision-making process. Given the operational impact, it was agreed that SysOps needs to play a significant role in evaluating and preparing for this change.

      SysOps' Role

      • There was a consensus that SysOps should review the JDK 21 migration before the TC makes any decisions. This would ensure that operational concerns, particularly for stakeholders like EBSCO, are fully considered.

      Scheduling and Coordination

      • It was decided that SysOps would first meet to discuss the JDK 21 migration and related operational issues. Following this, a TC meeting will be scheduled to incorporate SysOps’ feedback into the final decision.

      Next Steps

      • A Wednesday meeting was planned for August 28th to review the outcomes of the SysOps discussion and further refine the OST process to ensure better coordination between SysOps and the TC.
      .
5-10 minDeveloper Advocate Monthly ReportPatrick Pace (Unlicensed)
  • Service board permissions fixed for accepting requests
  • Developer environment tours conducted (e.g., with Kevin Day)
  • Strategy for implementing the documentation plan discussed
  • New manual location shared 
  • Plans to contact team leads for feedback:
  • Testing local development setups (Vagrant)
Time PermittingReference Data Upgrade

Ingolf Kuss

Jason Root

Craig McNally

Marc Johnson

Julian Ladisch

Hold until after Aug 2.

In the Sys Ops SIG meeting the topic of Reference Data Upgrades came up. The SIG thinks that the solution of this problem for mod-inventory-storage is not enough, but that this problem needs to be solved in a general way, for all modules.

There has been a long discussion 3-4 years ago about how FOLIO should handle reference data upon upgrades. See these links for background:

Background and Problem Statement

  • The issue at hand involves the handling of reference data during system upgrades. In previous upgrades, some institutions experienced data loss where customized reference data was overwritten by default settings during the upgrade process.
  • This problem was particularly highlighted in recent upgrade cycles, prompting a need for a more robust solution to preserve institution-specific customizations.

Existing Solutions and Approaches

  • Circulation Module Example:

    • The circulation module had addressed this issue by implementing a solution where reference data is only installed during the initial setup and skipped in subsequent upgrades unless new data is introduced in the upgrade. This approach prevents the overwriting of existing customized data.
    • The TC discussed whether this solution could be standardized and applied across other modules facing similar issues.

  • Challenges with Current Approach:

    • While the circulation module's solution is effective for preserving existing data, it does not account for scenarios where the reference data schema changes in new versions (e.g., adding new fields or making structural changes). In such cases, simply skipping the installation might not be sufficient, and more complex handling might be required.

Discussion Points

  • Standardization Across Modules:
    • The TC debated whether a similar approach should be mandated across all modules to ensure consistency and prevent data loss during upgrades. However, it was noted that this might require module-specific adjustments, depending on how each module manages its reference data.
  • Need for a Broader Solution:
    • There was recognition that a broader, more flexible solution might be necessary to handle various scenarios, such as changes in reference data structures. This could involve more sophisticated checks during the upgrade process to determine whether and how data should be updated or preserved.

Potential Actions

  • Subgroup Formation:
    • The idea of forming a new subgroup to focus on developing a comprehensive strategy for reference data handling during upgrades was floated. This subgroup could explore creating an RFC (Request for Comments) to propose a standardized approach across the project.
  • Review of Previous Work:
    • It was suggested that before moving forward, the TC should review previous efforts and discussions on this topic, including past proposals and proof-of-concept work that may have stalled due to resource constraints. This review would help ensure that any new efforts build on previous work rather than starting from scratch.

Next Steps

  • Further Discussion:
    • The TC agreed to revisit this discussion in the next meeting, with members encouraged to review past work and consider whether they are interested in participating in a potential subgroup. The goal would be to establish a clear path forward for managing reference data during upgrades across all modules.


NAZoom Chat


00:16:30 Tod Olson: @Jenn Colt I can reach out to PC now, if you like.
00:16:55 Maccabee Levine: This is the page where PC announces their decisions: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/PC/pages/4883942/Decision+log
00:18:49 Jenn Colt: Replying to "@Jenn Colt I can rea..."

Yes please!
00:21:11 Tod Olson: Replying to "@Jenn Colt I can rea..."

Have done on the internal PC channel.
00:43:09 Patrick Pace: June-July Report - Developer Advocacy - FOLIO Wiki (atlassian.net)
00:50:49 Marc Johnson: Back when I attended the release status meeting, not many dev leads attended
00:51:41 Maccabee Levine: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/PC/pages/298647579/Better+Sample+Data+in+FOLIO+Test+Environments+Working+Group
00:52:03 Patrick Pace: Replying to "Back when I attended..."

Good to know. I have had at least one team mention that they'd still like to meet one on one anyways. Perhaps I'll still need to move that direction anyways.
00:53:53 Patrick Pace: Sorry. Had my mic on.
00:56:21 Ingolf Kuss: For mod-circulation-storage, there are currently two Jira issues which are being worked on, one for the Poppy release, the other one for the Quesnelia release: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/CIRCSTORE-517
https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/CIRCSTORE-516
01:00:12 Patrick Pace: I have to go. Thanks everyone.


Topic Backlog

Decision Log ReviewAll

Review decisions that are in progress.  Can any of them be accepted?  rejected?

Translation SubgroupAllSince we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?
Communicating Breaking ChangesAll

Currently there is a PoC, developed by Maccabee Levine, of a utility to catalog Github PRs that have been labeled with the "breaking change" label. We would like to get developer feedback on the feasibility of this label being used more often, and the usefulness of this utility. 

Officially Supported Technologies - UpkeepAll

Previous Notes:

  • A workflow for these pages. When do they transition from one state to another. Do we even need statuses at all ?

Stripes architecture group has some questions about the Poppy release.

Zak: A handshake between developers, dev ops and the TC. Who makes that decision and how do we pass along that knowledge ? E.g. changes in Nodes and in the UI boxes. How to communicate this ? We have a large number of teams, all have to be aware of it.  TC should be alerted that changes are happening. We have a couple of dedicated channels for that. Most dev ops have subscribed to these channels. How can dev ops folk raise issues to the next level of community awareness ? There hasn't been a specific piece of TC to move that along.

Craig: There is a fourth group, "Capacity Planning" or "Release Planning". Slack is the de facto communication channel.  There are no objections to using Slack. An example is the Java 17 RFC. 

Craig: The TC gets it on the agenda and we will discuss it. The TC gets the final say.

Marc Johnson: We shouldn’t use the DevOps Channel. The dev ops folks have made it clear that it should only be used for support requests made to them.

Jakub: Our responsibility is to avoid piling up technical debt.

Marc: Some set of people have to actually make the call. Who lowers the chequered flag ?

Craig: It needs to ultimately come to the TC at least for awareness. There is a missing piece. Capacity Planning needs to provide input here. 

Marc: Stakeholders / Capacity Planning could make that decision. Who makes the decision ? Is it the government or is it some parts of the body ?

Marc: the developers community, the dev ops community and sys ops are involved. For example the Spring Framework discussion or the Java 17 discussion. But it was completely separate to the TC decision. It is a coordination and communication effort.

Marc: Maybe the TC needs to let go that they are the decision makers so that they be a moderating group.

Jakub: I agree with Marc. But we are not a system operating group. Dependency management should be in the responsibility of Release management. There are structures in the project for that.

Jason Root: I agree with Jakub and with Marc also. Policies should drive operational/release/support aspects of Folio.

Jason Root: If the idea of “support” is that frameworks are supported, then of course the project should meet that.

Marc Johnson
Some group needs to inform OleksAii when a relevant policy event occurs.
These documents effectively ARE the manifestation of the policy.

Craig: This is a topic for the next Monday session.

Craig to see if Oleksii Petrenko could join us to discuss the process for updating the officially supported technologies lists.


Dev Documentation VisibilityAll

Possible topic/activity for a Wednesday session:

Discuss/brainstorm:

  • Ideas for the type of developer-facing documentation we think would be most helpful for new developers
  • How we might bring existing documentation up to date and ensure it's consistent 
  • etc.
API linting within our backend modulesAll

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713343461518409


Hello team, I would like to discuss API linting within our backend modules. Some time ago, we transitioned our linting process from Jenkins to GitHub Actions as outlined in https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/FOLIO-3678. I am assuming that this move was done via some technical council decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In my observations, I've found two problems:
  1. Schema linting does not occur if the schemas are in YAML format.
  2. There are issues with resolving some deeper references during API linting.
Although I'm unsure about how to improve the existing linting implementations within Folio, I propose to consider an open-source solution that handles OpenAPI linting effectively and allows us to define custom rules. For your reference: https://stoplight.io/open-source/spectral A test of this solution can be found in this PR: https://github.com/folio-org/mod-search/pull/567. The same PR also provides an example of custom rule definition: https://github.com/folio-org/mod-search/pull/567/files#diff-d5da7cb43c444434994b76f3b04aa6e702c09e938de09dbc09d72569d611d9ab.Also, by employing 'Spectral', I discovered AsyncAPI (https://www.asyncapi.com/en), an API design tool similar to OpenAPI but for asynchronous interactions. I suggest that we consider using AsyncAPI in FOLIO to generate documentation for Kafka interactions.


PR TemplatesAll

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713445649504769

Hello team, Small request to consider.
Regarding pr templates.
  1. From my perspective, pr template is not good idea. Even the biggest open source projects that are contributed by many people don't have any pr template. Currently what we have for acq modules https://github.com/folio-org/mod-orders-storage/blob/master/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
  2. These pr template is inconsistent in different teams.
What I suggest is that, pr template shouldn't be any instructions, because most developer who are creating pr have already understand the rules. If we put just two section into template, it will encourage developers to write more about their work and that lead to knowledge  sharing among developers.
Java 21All

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713445764285349


Is Tech Council considering to update to java 21, I head good things from Netflix engineering teams about Garbage collector
https://www.infoq.com/presentations/netflix-java/ (edited)

Proposed Mod KafkaAll

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1714471592534689

Mike Taylor

Proposal. If and only if a FOLIO instance is running Kafka, it should insert and enable a module called mod-kafka, which consists entirely of a module descriptor that says it provides the interface kafka. The purpose is so that other modules can use the standard <IfInterface> and similar tools to determine whether they should attempt Kafka operations. Rationale: the FOLIO ILS depends absolutely on Kafka, but other uses of the platform will not. One such example: a dev platform that includes only mod-users, used as a source of change events for Metadb.

Action Items