2024-01-24 - Direct DB Migration Scripts

Jeremy Huff is next, followed by  Marc Johnson 

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. 

Context/Background:

From Ingolf Kuss in #tc-internal.  See full thread here.

Sys Ops SIG wants to reach out formally to the TC because of the topic of direct db upgrade scripts in Poppy migration.
In the Poppy release notes, there are a number of db scripts described which need to be run by the operator after migration of the tenant.
I find the following scripts in the action column of the Release Notes:
  - Script 3 of https://wiki.folio.org/display/FOLIOtips/Scripts+for+Inventory%2C+Source+Record+Storage%2C+and+Data+Import+Cleanup
  - https://wiki.folio.org/display/FOLIJET/Call-numbers+migration
  - https://wiki.folio.org/display/FOLIJET/Authorities+migration
  - https://wiki.folio.org/display/FOLIOtips/Migration+scripts+for+OAI-PMH
  - https://wiki.folio.org/display/FOLIJET/Scripts+to+populate+marc_indexers+version
  - https://wiki.folio.org/display/FOLIJET/Adding+a+new+member+tenant+to+consortium.+mod-entities-links+scope
So far, in earlier releases, those kind of scripts have (in almost all cases) been part of the module, and have been triggered automatically when the new module is first being enabled for the tenant, while the old module is still enabled for the tenant (the old module is then being disabled and removed in the course of the upgrade).
SysOps SIG strongly feels that some of these scripts should be handled in that way: to be part of the module upgrade triggered by enablement for the tenant. FOLIO operators at Index Data find it pretty burdensome to deal with the upgrade scripts with many tenants in a multiple environments. Other members of Sys Ops agree and are confused why those script are not part of the modules's db migration.

If the migration is long-running (e.g. 4-5 hours), it appears reasonable to put it into a separate script. However, Sys Ops think, it should be available by some post-upgrade API, like /inventory-storage/migrations/jobs is for inventory migration.

If a decision has to be made during upgrade, in a ideal world, a tenant admin (not a sysadmin) should get notified (via UI) about that he/she has to make a decision. Until the decision has been made the module may stop to work as usual.

We think the TC could document some standard expectation for the POs.

Also, SysOps should be involved in the release retrospective.

Notes:

• ...

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.

• Do common libraries used to build in approved frameworks need to be on this list? Such as spring-way and spring-module-core.

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.