2022-10-17 SEC Call notes
Date
Oct 17, 2022
Call Link
Participants
@Sebastian Garde
@Diego Bosca
@Pablo Pazos
@Sebastian Iancu
@Erik Sundvall
@Seref Arikan
@Ian McNicoll
Goals
previous meeting: 2022-09-19 SEC Call notes
Discussion topics
| Item | Presenter/Suggested by | Issue | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Meta | ||||
5 min | Opening |
|
| USEFUL Jira RESOURCE: CRs I have not accepted. |
Main Agenda | ||||
15 min | openEHR platform release management.
| @Pablo Pazos @Thomas Beale | Currently we release at a Component level, e.g. RM 1.1.0, AM 2.2.0 etc. We don’t currently have a full ‘platform release’ mechanism. To take care of e.g. RM 1.1.0 needs at least BASE 1.0.4 or similar. NB: general idea of the components in openEHR was to be loosely coupled, and have limited version inter-dependency. |
|
15 min | Specification lifecycle management | @Pablo Pazos | We don’t currently mark specs as Obsolete / deprecated etc, although we do have guidelines for this. | The old PDF specs probably should be taken offline? We can’t regenerate them, so can’t easily mark them as deprecated within the docs. When do we deprecate RM, AM etc specs? Probably all pre-1.0.2 RM should be deprecated. |
15 min | JSON schema update | @Pablo Pazos | Working on 2 versions of schemas -
Generated various RM versions. Question on how XXX_REF classes are represented in JSON schema. Based on JSON schema errors/ issues, BMMs might have issues and/or Archie BMM → JSON-schema generator. | @Sebastian Iancu what variant of JSON schema to support in OpenAPI, versus in back-end CDR? What level of JSON schema spec supported for (external) payload spec, by OpenAPI? Also - question of ‘relaxed’ mode schema. Could defined relaxed form of RM in SM, and make BMM of that - this would then be a source for JSON schema that an be referenced from OpenAPI. |
30 min | REST API update | @Seref Arikan (Personal) @Sebastian Iancu |
| Progress:
Issues:
|
Tips and Tricks | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
Hackers' Corner | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
Next SEC call | ||||
| Outstanding topics: Agenda items: | |||
Notes
Action items
@Thomas Beale @Sebastian Iancu @Seref Arikan for the “openEHR platform release management” I agree with Sebastian on having a dependency list, but also have a per-version specification: which components depend on which other components, and which versions of those other components are compatible with the current version of the component.
Then the whole spec release is just a result of that, but using the latest version of all dependencies (because the dependency map SHOULD have the specific versions of other specs each spec depends upon). Then Seref comment is exactly what I need: for conformance verification, the first thing a system could claim is “I’m compliant with this x.y.z release of the spec” (whole spec release), then with the dependency list/map we can get the specific versions of each individual spec and use the test cases for those spec versions to test the system.
I call “baseline” to the “whole spec release”. And having that doesn’t block us to release versions of individual releases, just adds a couple of extra steps:
for the new version of an individual spec released, we need to update the dependency map (new dependencies, deprecated dependencies, obsolete dependencies, and the versions of those)
the conformance tests should also be updated and tagged with each individual spec version (e.g. if the test is about ITS-JSON or is about REST-API, etc. and those specs are updated, the new versions of those specs should be linked to the new conformance tests)
generate a new baseline release (all specs) considering the updated dependency map, including the conformance tests