[JBoss JIRA] (SWSQE-1056) Try OCP 4.4 on IPv6 in PSI
by Hayk Hovsepyan (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SWSQE-1056?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Hayk Hovsepyan updated SWSQE-1056:
----------------------------------
Sprint: Kiali Sprint #32, Kiali Sprint #36, Kiali Sprint #37, Kiali Sprint #38, Kiali Sprint #39, Kiali Sprint #40, Kiali Sprint #41 (was: Kiali Sprint #32, Kiali Sprint #36, Kiali Sprint #37, Kiali Sprint #38, Kiali Sprint #39, Kiali Sprint #40)
> Try OCP 4.4 on IPv6 in PSI
> --------------------------
>
> Key: SWSQE-1056
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SWSQE-1056
> Project: Kiali QE
> Issue Type: QE Task
> Reporter: Filip Brychta
> Assignee: Filip Brychta
> Priority: Major
> Labels: infrastructure
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (SWSQE-612) QE CI/CP Integration, best practices - stage 2
by Hayk Hovsepyan (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SWSQE-612?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Hayk Hovsepyan updated SWSQE-612:
---------------------------------
Sprint: Kiali Sprint #36, Kiali Sprint #37, Kiali Sprint #38, Kiali Sprint #39, Kiali Sprint #40, Kiali Sprint #41 (was: Kiali Sprint #36, Kiali Sprint #37, Kiali Sprint #38, Kiali Sprint #39, Kiali Sprint #40)
> QE CI/CP Integration, best practices - stage 2
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SWSQE-612
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SWSQE-612
> Project: Kiali QE
> Issue Type: Story
> Reporter: Filip Brychta
> Assignee: Filip Brychta
> Priority: Major
> Labels: infrastructure
>
> This story is to track future tasks when the stage 1 is finished.
> Tasks from this story might be worked simultaneously with stage 1 tasks but with lower priority.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-13508) Incorrect layer name for 'naming' layer on the layer specification file
by Yeray Borges Santana (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-13508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Yeray Borges Santana updated WFLY-13508:
----------------------------------------
Summary: Incorrect layer name for 'naming' layer on the layer specification file (was: Incorrect layer name for 'naming' layer on the ayer specification file)
> Incorrect layer name for 'naming' layer on the layer specification file
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-13508
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-13508
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Yeray Borges Santana
> Assignee: Yeray Borges Santana
> Priority: Minor
>
> Galleon layer name for "naming" layer should be "naming" instead of "ee".
> This is not a problem at all since currently layers names are discovered by the directory name it resides, however, the wrong name here could lead to confusion.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-5372) Implement PMML coexistence
by Gabriele Cardosi (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/DROOLS-5372?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug... ]
Gabriele Cardosi edited comment on DROOLS-5372 at 6/8/20 6:05 AM:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Most cost-effective solution could be:
# verify the behavior when *both*
{code:java}
PMMLAssemblerService
{code}
s (from old and new kie-pmml) are present in the classpath ( "openshift/docker" images):
## only one is invoked; evaluate how this may be managed when both modules are expected to be present in the classpath
# different issue for the PMMLRuntime, since it is defined and used in the new kie-pmml but not in the old one
# Create a "NO_OP" resourcetype
# Define an _environmental_ variable used to choose the implementation *but only if both are presents* (this variable is ignored if only one implementation is present)
# Inside both PMMLRuntimes.getResourceType, add a verification snippet that *if both implementations are present*, consider the variable - return "NO_OP" resource type from the PMMLAssembler that has to be excluded
# inside DMN:
## Create `DMNKiePMMLNewInvocationEvaluator`
## Put common code with `DMNKiePMMLInvocationEvaluator` inside `AbstractDMNKiePMMLInvocationEvaluator`
## inside
{code:java}
AbstractPMMLInvocationEvaluator.PMMLInvocationEvaluatorFactory.newInstance(...)
{code}
add an "if" to choose wich `AbstractDMNKiePMMLInvocationEvaluator` implementation (old or new) is to be used when the jpmml one is not in the classpath
# Code written for *old* kie-pmml will be incompatible for new one (and the other way around)
was (Author: gabriolo):
Most cost-effective solution could be:
# verify the behavior when *both*
{code:java}
PMMLAssemblerService
{code}
s (from old and new kie-pmml) are present in the classpath ( "openshift/docker" images):
## only one is invoked; evaluate how this may be managed when both modules are expected to be present in the classpath
# different issue for the PMMLRuntime, since it is defined and used in the new kie-pmml but not in the old one
# Create a "NO_OP" resourcetype
# Define an _environmental_ variable used to choose the implementation *but only if both are presents* (this variable is ignored if only one implementation is present)
# Inside both PMMLRuntimes.getResourceType, add a verification snippet that *if both implementations are present*, consider the variable - return "NO_OP" resource type from the PMMLAssembler that has to be excluded
# inside DMN:
## inside
{code:java}
AbstractPMMLInvocationEvaluator.PMMLInvocationEvaluatorFactory.newInstance(...)
{code}
add an "if" to choose wich kie-pmml implementation (old or new) is to be used when the jpmml one is not in the classpath
# Code written for *old* kie-pmml will be incompatible for new one (and the other way around)
> Implement PMML coexistence
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-5372
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/DROOLS-5372
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Gabriele Cardosi
> Assignee: Gabriele Cardosi
> Priority: Major
> Labels: TrustyAI
>
> New and old PMML implementations should live together for some time.
> See comment
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 7 months