[Fiware-iot] Re-Review of IoT (Consolidated IoT reaction)

[CARLOS RALLI UCENDO]

Miguel,


I've collected all reactions of IoT partners in this e-mail so we can
discuss it efficiently if you still think you need more clarifications.


1) IoT Discovery (University of Surrey): Corrected.

2) Data Handling (Esper4Data, Orange): Corrected.

3) Protocol Adaptor (ZPA, Telecom Italia): Corrected. Details from Sabrina
Guerra:

I modified UnitTestingPlan for the ZPA, renaming the section 2 and 3 as
you suggested in the excel file: in particular I renumbered the unit tests
(now there are 11 unit tests). The first two unit tests regard the same
feature
FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.NorthboundNGSI.EventProducer
and the epic FIWARE.Epic.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.NorthboundNGSI.
I saw that the roadmap entries were misaligned with respect to the
features of the unit tests so:
·         I moved the
FIWARE.Epic.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.NorthboundNGSI into the
appropriate column "Epics under analysis"
·         I renumbered the unit tests so the feature
FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.NorthboundNGSI.EventProducer is
traced by the unit test 10 and 11.



4) IoT Broker (NEC). I consider them as solved according to their
explanations, but I may lack some context on your review.
See details from Tobias/Salvatore:


*** INSTALLATION&ADMIN GUIDE:
"NOK
Original comment: ""Mostly acceptable but we need an example query to test
the database to give a final ok. ""
This is for a system administrator who wants to check that the internal
components are running ok. Stating that ""it requires no particular
configuration or installation procedure""  is not what we are looking for.
If the admin suspects that something is wrong in the database, he should
be able to perform a quick query to see if the DB responds."

The situation is that the IoT Broker does not rely on a database that is
preinstalled on the system, but initializes its own, non-persistent
database during runtime. This database is not easily accessible from the
outside. We still reworked the point and tried to define something like a
database check procedure, please check
https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/IoT_Broker
_-_Installation_and_Administration_Guide#Databases.


*** USER & Prog:
"Original question from Review 1 unanswered:
""QUESTION
I do not oppose the ""NGSI ..."" manual but I wonder where this one will
go. User manual, maybe??"""

We have added in the previous revision a link to the NGSI association page
to the user and programmers guide, see
https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/IoT_Broker
_-_User_and_Programmers_Guide#User_Guide

Is that sufficient, or should we rather embed the NGSI association page in
the user & programmer guide?

( Copy&pasting it there I would like to avoid since that page is used in
the documentation of several GEs and future changes might lead to
inconsistencies if there are multiple copies. )


**** UnitTestingPlan:
"NOK
Still mentions in the text to a non existant ""Query.AttributeDomain"""

Query.AttributeDomain is a release 1 feature and therefore does not appear
in the recent technical roadmap (this holds also true for some other
tested features). What we did in the previous revision was to explicitly
state it whenever a unit test was for a release 1 feature. Check for
example
https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Backend_Io
T_Broker_GE_-_Unit_Testing_Plan_and_Report#Unit_Test_6
where it is written ³This Unit Test involves the following feature of
FI-WARE Release 1:²



5) GW Device Configura Manager (OpenMTC, Fraunhofer): I've received some
answers/questions from them.
Let me have a deeper look to this ones during this week.




Cheers,

El 26/07/13 18:52, "MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO" <mcp at tid.es> escribió:

>Dear all,
>
>As my understanding is that Carlos and Thierry are on holidays, I send
>you my review directly.  We are getting very very close to the limit and
>I will be able to put very little time in this from now on.  The cells
>in red show problems that need your action. If a given GE does not show
>enough quality soon, it may be out of the Campus Party and definitely
>from the OIL.
>
>This review is merely formal, a review of different nature, more
>technical, may come at some point.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Miguel
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      _/          _/_/                     Miguel Carrillo Pacheco
>     _/   _/     _/  _/   Telefónica       Distrito Telefónica
>    _/ _/_/_/   _/   _/   Investigación y  Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9
>   _/   _/     _/  _/     Desarrollo       Ronda de la Comunicación S/N
>  _/          _/_/                         28050 Madrid (Spain)
>                                           Tel:  (+34) 91 483 26 77
>
>                                           e-mail: mcp at tid.es
>
>Follow FI-WARE on the net
>
>       Website:  http://www.fi-ware.eu
>       Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242
>       Twitter:  http://twitter.com/Fiware
>       LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx