2025-02-19 Eureka decisions

Deadline for new module acceptance into Sunflower is this Friday

TCR-52:  ui-claims - https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/blob/4aa2bba1a65dbdbff2b832c6e2d0703959f299b0/module_evaluations/TCR-52_2025_02_04-ui-claims.MD

• The only thing Joshua Greben has questions about are regarding license compatibility...  "How deep do I dig?"
  • Several layers down the dependency chain there are libraries which use MIT license and/or BSD, e.g. firebug-lite, backbone, etc.  Pulled in by lodash
  • It runs out that at least in some cases you can choose which license is applicable, so maybe not an issue for us.
• lodash for instance is used all over the place, it's not something specific to this module
• See the evaluation for additional details
• module produces different module descriptors from the github actions (complete) vs stripes mod descriptor --full   
  • Turns out this is related to the --strict parameter.  When using that locally the MD generated is the same as what was seen in GH Actions.
• It looks like the okapiInterfaces defined in the package.json are not making it into the module descriptor seen in the MDR.
  • See https://folio-registry.dev.folio.org/_/proxy/modules/folio_ui-claims-1.0.1099000000007
  • This appears that the process which generates MDs and publishes them to the MDR is probably not using the --strict parameter.  IOW this isn't a problem with this module but an operational problem.
  • We should look into this offline and discuss in a future TC meeting if needed.  Let's coordinate in #tc-internal.
• There are no failed criteria at this point.
• TCR-52 was approved via lazy consensus.

Items to consider:

• Eureka RFC
  • There is a draft RFC, it's a WIP.  Is there value in continuing down this path?
  • There's probably value in some of the information if it's not present elsewhere.  Maybe move that to a more appropriate place and stop with the RFC.
  • The decision has already been made, making the RFC a little redundant.
  • Note on the draft RFC what the situation is, and why.
  • Suggestion:  Create a decision record to capture the formal decision, link out to meeting notes, the RFC, etc.
  • Action: Craig McNally to create a decision record
    • Cross-link to the RFC
    • Provide an explanation of why the RFC was closed
    • What decisions have been made.
      • including waiving formal TCR evaluation of Eureka components
• FQM manager RFC
  • Still waiting on this.  An RFC does exist (in a private space?) 
  • It keeps coming up, we still want it.
  • Last time we discussed this we decided to ask Vince/Matt to update the RFC to reflect the current design, which is different from the initial design.
  • Let's discuss this more in a future meeting
    • Action: Jenn Colt/ Craig McNally to add this to the topic backlog
• Eureka-related TCR evaluations
  • The TC owes Oleksii Petrenko a list of new modules approved by the TC for inclusion into Sunflower. (By the deadline - EOW)
  • Should this list include the Eureka-related components?
    • Yes, let's be comprehensive
  • Action: Craig McNally will create a parent page in the TC space and one for the Sunflower release under that.
• Maybe there are more things we need to discuss. 
  • Testrail test cases and permissions/roles mgmt.
  • Application evaluation / module evaluation - process/criteria/etc. adjustments.
  • Retrospective on the decision making process - related to the Eureka adoption decisions. (Part of the RFC process anyway)
  • Revisit the conditional aspect of Eureka adoption timeline approval... (see )
  • The plan as discussed is to continue to enumerate those out of band and get them into the Wednesday topic backlog