2021-09-15 Meeting notes
- Craig McNally
- James Fuller
- Raman Auramau
Date
Attendees
- Craig McNally
- Jeremy Huff
- Julian Ladisch (Dennis Benndorf 's deputy)
- Ian Walls
- Marc Johnson
- Zak Burke
- Mark Veksler
- VBar
- Tod Olson
- Philip Robinson
- James Fuller
- ... (some participants might be occasionally not mentioned)
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 min | Scribe | All | Jakub Skoczen is next but on vacation, so this falls to Raman Auramau. Dennis Benndorf (deputy: Julian Ladisch) is next after that. |
5 min | Review outstanding action items | All | Reviewed the list of incomplete tasks, no updates from Philip and Mark V |
| 30 min | External Code Submissions |
--- Craig McNally proposed to continue work of the group on further acceptance criteria clarification, avoid disambiguation, etc. Do we need to schedule something for that? Will discuss offline. --- Jeremy Huff presented MOD-LDP Acceptance Analysis outcome (analysis performed by Jeremy Huff, Jason Root and Kevin Day). Some criteria are marked as met though there're some that are not met or are unclear. Marc Johnson mentioned that we need to urgently check with the Community Council the ownership / copyright assumption Unmet criteria about appropriate permissions - its purpose was about security; not clear how to access HA criteria? briefly walked through all other criteria and notes. Sounds like a fail from the first pass - there are a number of crosses. Need to check with dev team Marc Johnson - the evaluation of the PostgreSQL related topics depends upon if we think of that as using the FOLIO PostgreSQL or using another PostgreSQL as a facade to the LDP system. Need to clarify where this DB is expected to be hosted FOLIO contains a bunch of modules that are related to particular external system integration (like inn-reach, caiaisoft, etc.) Reach out to LDP stuff to clarify with them all the Raman Auramau - How much time did it take to make a report? Jeremy - All was done in one day given the simplicity of LDP module though for larger modules it can take up to 2-3 days maybe week. --- Zak Burke presented UI-LDP Acceptance Analysis report. A lotta criteria r not applicable (marked with a dash) Some criteria are not met (e.g., Code of Conduct, WCAG compliance, unit tests coverage); there are concerns regarding UI layouts & patterns Marc Johnson - end to end UI tests were / are intended to be in a separate repository to the modules? FOLIO expects a 3 column layout, with the left most column to be the search / filter criteria and the middle column is search results? Craig McNally - UI layouts - it's not right/wrong but the questions of consistency What if apps can vary their UX basing on their needs and on what they consider is a better fit for their use case (e.g., 3 column layout or 2 column layout) - how this can be reflected in acceptance criteria? There were some debates around this. Conclusion: UI-LDP failed to pass acceptance criteria now. Need to push back the report to dev team. Julian Ladisch - it makes sense to discuss unmet criteria with LDP team How to send these reports back? Send as is? Mark Veksler - Publish a response in Tech Council channel with a report(-s), and dev teams are expected to react on that Craig McNally will post to channel | |
| 20 min | Check-out Performance | Proposal: Check Out Performance Marc Johnson was asked to make a proposal for checking out performance; draft document is available by the link above. Feedback is appreciated There's a link to PTF analysis from the mentioned doc Debate regarding cache/caching as a term.. Ian Walls "we could revisit the concept of a Shared Storage module that can allow for data from all these different modules to be retrieved live instead of maintained in duplicate" Agreed to add a placeholder for the next meeting to continue the discussion. | |
Time permitting (likely deferred) | Technical Decision Making Process | All | (this was deferred) This is a carry-over from two weeks ago week. It was a tangent of the min.io/S3 conversation that started to delve into topics of
NOTE: We need to frame this conversation and agree upon what we're trying to accomplish and how much time we want to dedicate to it before diving in. |
Time permitting (likely deferred) | TC charter review | All | (this was deferred) |