mirror of
https://github.com/nasa/openmct.git
synced 2024-12-19 13:17:53 +00:00
[API Redesign] Add activity diagram
This commit is contained in:
parent
75d7240476
commit
5921883325
@ -16,6 +16,77 @@ These plans are intended to minimize:
|
||||
|
||||
# Plan
|
||||
|
||||
```nomnoml
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<state> Imperative bundle registration]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
[<state> Imperative bundle registration]->[<state> Incorporate a build step]
|
||||
|
||||
[<state> Incorporate a build step |
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<state> Choose package manager]
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<state> Choose build system]
|
||||
[<state> Choose build system]<->[<state> Choose package manager]
|
||||
[<state> Choose package manager]->[<state> Implement]
|
||||
[<state> Choose build system]->[<state> Implement]
|
||||
[<state> Implement]->[<end> End]
|
||||
]->[<state> Separate repositories]
|
||||
|
||||
[<state> Separate repositories]->[<state> Release candidacy]
|
||||
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<state> Design registration API]
|
||||
|
||||
[<state> Imperative bundle registration]->[<state> Imperative extension registration]
|
||||
|
||||
[<state> Design registration API |
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<state> Decide on role of Angular]
|
||||
[<state> Decide on role of Angular]->[<state> Design API]
|
||||
[<state> Design API]->[<choice> Passes review?]
|
||||
[<choice> Passes review?] no ->[<state> Design API]
|
||||
[<choice> Passes review?]-> yes [<end> End]
|
||||
]->[<state> Imperative extension registration]
|
||||
|
||||
[<state> Imperative extension registration]->[<state> Refactor individual extensions]
|
||||
|
||||
[<state> Refactor individual extensions |
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<state> Prioritize]
|
||||
[<state> Prioritize]->[<choice> Sufficient value added?]
|
||||
[<choice> Sufficient value added?] no ->[<end> End]
|
||||
[<choice> Sufficient value added?] yes ->[<state> Design]
|
||||
[<state> Design]->[<choice> Passes review?]
|
||||
[<choice> Passes review?] no ->[<state> Design]
|
||||
[<choice> Passes review?]-> yes [<state> Implement]
|
||||
[<state> Implement]->[<end> End]
|
||||
]->[<state> Remove legacy bundle support]
|
||||
|
||||
[<state> Remove legacy bundle support]->[<state> Release candidacy]
|
||||
|
||||
[<state> Release candidacy |
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<state> Verify |
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<choice> API well-documented?]
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<choice> API well-tested?]
|
||||
[<choice> API well-documented?]-> no [<state> Write documentation]
|
||||
[<choice> API well-documented?] yes ->[<end> End]
|
||||
[<state> Write documentation]->[<choice> API well-documented?]
|
||||
[<choice> API well-tested?]-> no [<state> Write test cases]
|
||||
[<choice> API well-tested?]-> yes [<end> End]
|
||||
[<state> Write test cases]->[<choice> API well-tested?]
|
||||
]
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<state> Validate |
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<choice> Passes review?]
|
||||
[<start> Start]->[<state> Use internally]
|
||||
[<state> Use internally]->[<choice> Proves useful?]
|
||||
[<choice> Passes review?]-> no [<state> Address feedback]
|
||||
[<state> Address feedback]->[<choice> Passes review?]
|
||||
[<choice> Passes review?] yes -> [<end> End]
|
||||
[<choice> Proves useful?] yes -> [<end> End]
|
||||
[<choice> Proves useful?] no -> [<state> Fix problems]
|
||||
[<state> Fix problems]->[<state> Use internally]
|
||||
]
|
||||
[<state> Validate]->[<end> End]
|
||||
[<state> Verify]->[<end> End]
|
||||
]->[<end> End]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 1. Imperative bundle registration
|
||||
|
||||
Register whole bundles imperatively, using their current format.
|
||||
@ -32,10 +103,11 @@ define([
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Where `mctRegistry.install` is placeholder API that wires into the
|
||||
existing bundle registration mechanisms. The framework layer and
|
||||
main point of entry would need to be adapted to (a) clearly depend
|
||||
on these bundles, in the require sense of a dependency, and
|
||||
(b)
|
||||
existing bundle registration mechanisms. The main point of entry
|
||||
would need to be adapted to clearly depend on these bundles
|
||||
(in the require sense of a dependency), and the framework layer
|
||||
would need to implement and integrate with this transitional
|
||||
API.
|
||||
|
||||
Benefits:
|
||||
|
||||
@ -55,7 +127,9 @@ Benefits:
|
||||
written here to defer the task of making changes ubiquitously
|
||||
throughout bundles, allowing for earlier validation and
|
||||
verification of those changes, and avoiding ubiquitous changes
|
||||
which might require us to go dark.
|
||||
which might require us to go dark. (Avoids a
|
||||
["greenfield paradox"](http://stepaheadsoftware.blogspot.com/2012/09/greenfield-or-refactor-legacy-code-base.html).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Detriments:
|
||||
|
||||
@ -164,9 +238,11 @@ general case.
|
||||
|
||||
Register individual extensions imperatively, implementing API changes
|
||||
from the previous step. At this stage, _usage_ of the API may be confined
|
||||
to a transitional adapter in the framework layer
|
||||
to a transitional adapter in the framework layer; bundles may continue
|
||||
to utilize the transitional API for registering extensions in the
|
||||
legacy format.
|
||||
|
||||
An important sub-task here will be to discover and define dependencies
|
||||
An important, ongoing sub-task here will be to discover and define dependencies
|
||||
among bundles. Composite services and extension categories are presently
|
||||
"implicit"; after the API redesign, these will become "explicit", insofar
|
||||
as some specific component will be responsible for creating any registries.
|
||||
@ -193,7 +269,11 @@ or separately in parallel) and should involve a tight cycle of:
|
||||
3. Review. Refactoring individual extensions will require significant
|
||||
effort (likely the most significant effort in the process) so changes
|
||||
should be validated early to minimize risk/waste.
|
||||
4. Implementation.
|
||||
4. Implementation. These changes will not have a one-to-one relationship
|
||||
with existing extensions, so changes cannot be centralized; usages
|
||||
will need to be updated across all "bundles" instead of centralized
|
||||
in a legacy adapter. If changes are of sufficient complexity, some
|
||||
planning should be done to spread out the changes incrementally.
|
||||
|
||||
By necessity, these changes may break functionality in applications
|
||||
built using Open MCT Web. On a case-by-case basis, should consider
|
||||
@ -203,7 +283,14 @@ waste/effort required to maintain legacy support, versus the
|
||||
downtime which may be introduced by making these changes simultaneously
|
||||
across several repositories.
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 7. Release candidacy
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 7. Remove legacy bundle support
|
||||
|
||||
Update bundles to remove any usages of legacy support for bundles
|
||||
(including that used by dependent projects.) Then, remove legacy
|
||||
support from Open MCT Web.
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 8. Release candidacy
|
||||
|
||||
Once API changes are complete, Open MCT Web should enter a release
|
||||
candidacy cycle. Important things to look at here:
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user