Details
-
Type:
RFC
-
Status: Implemented
-
Resolution: Done
-
Component/s: DM
-
Labels:None
Description
In order to test generation 3 middleware integration with the rest of the stack, a new package called gen3_ci_hsc will be created. This will process the same data as ci_hsc currently does, and so to avoid data duplication I propose the following:
- Make ci_hsc a data only package, that has a slowly changing version such that, once it is installed, other packages can link against this data.
- Take all the ci code out of ci_hsc and move it to a gen2_ci_hsc package. Aside from the data being supplied by ci_hsc this will be exactly what people recognize now.
- Make the new gen3_ci_hsc package depend on the new data only package.
The proposed splitting of packages will make it easier to drop gen2 support when the time comes, and free the data up to be more easily used by other test suites.
Attachments
Issue Links
Activity
Nate Lust all the triggered work for this ticket has been completed but have we released the new packages yet? Was there a community post telling people what to do? I still worry a bit that we should still have a "ci_hsc" that is a metapackage that runs both of the new packages.
So this work is not finished yet. I am still fighting an issue with MacOs on gen3 on jenkins that I am not seeing on a local MacOS machine. Jim and I talked about this, and I think we are going to go ahead and create a community post describing the gen2 and gen3 packages and the data split very soon. The post will just have the caveat that gen3 with MacOS is expected to fail. Then after some deprecation time, we can switch the name of ci_hsc over to a meta package if we want.
To avoid further doubt on this issue can you please add a new triggered ticket to this RFC so that we are aware that work is still ongoing?
I want to note that I was thinking of other work when I typed of this adoption, and do not in fact plan on adding this to lsst_distrib, only to repos.yaml such that they can be built. I apologize for any confusion. I have edited the adoption comment to reflect this, but am leaving this comment here for those that might find this thread via a Jira email with the outdated wording.