Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date & Time 

  11:00 PDT



Room System

Phone Dial-in

  1. Dial: or
  2. Enter Meeting ID: 103664856 -or- use the pairing code

Dial-in numbers:

  • +1 408 740 7256
  • +1 888 240 2560 (US Toll Free)
  • +1 408 317 9253 (Alternate Number)

Meeting ID: 927260081



Discussion items

Note that this is a special DM-SST meeting focsed only on the Gen3 Acceptance testing. DM-SST members who are not concerned with this topic are excused. Similarly non DM-SST members who are interested are invited to participate


ItemWhoPre-Meeting NotesNotes and  Action Items
Gen 3 middleware acceptance test campaign


feature-complete: 81
mostly-implemented: 1
feature-incomplete: 25
unclear: 14
hackable: 2
needs-service: 2 Total: 126

  • LPG: What do unclear, hackable and need-service mean?
  • JB:  
    • unclear: any of: ground has shifted / don't understand requirements / how should the original use case be satisfied.  Review needed. 
    • hackable: low level codein place in middleware and could be satisfied by writing a script,  but the intention of the original requirement envisaged higher-level functionality, which this might not be necessary or worth the effort. 
    • needs-service:satisfying the requirement not on the mw itsefl but on an associated service. Maybe better tested via the associated service. 
  • LPG: Requirement review needed for the above categories. Which are priorities for the near term. hacakble/ needs-service seem low priority to resolve.  Set up a PR to review offline. Those that are still unclear after internal review will go to the DM-SST vF2F meeting. 
  • CTS: unclear are more ancillary requirements, i.e  not driving needs.
  • JB: We want to resolve early for architecture concerns. 
  • LPG: Does feature-incomplete imply not started? 
  • JB: Not necessarily, could mean 'not-started'.
  • JB: Some feature-complete require non-trivial test cases. The ones listed in the comments tabs are those that are  easy  Include harder ones in the next acceptance test  campaign. Some would be better done with a DR.
  • About 15 that we can easily do with ci_hsc. Others involve transfers from the RSP.
  • TJ: No explicit test case that we can do everything G2 does. We don't have a test case for refcat ingest.  
  • CTS: There are no requirement on refcats.
  • LPG: Will not include refcat ingest testing in this milestone. Will consider this as part of a future test campaign. We will need to do this at somepoint. 
  • TJ: Concerned that  we are not staring from an empty Gen3 repo and populating it for any of these tests. In future we should plan to start from an empty repo, ingest, process, analyse data. ci_hsc_gen3 was created from Gen2.  No test should start from G2 and convert. All test must be fully G3 (end-to-end, empty repo to processed visits) native testing.  
  • LPG: This is important ot test but not for this specific milestone. Add a note for future campaigns. (i.e in the test report)
  • JB: Mini-rc2 - talk to Brock and get his configuration files to run 
  • CTS: Many requirements are things that ci_hsc does. Do we need to write extra code? 
  • TJ: Can we point to the X lines of unit test code?  Weekly tag code. Name the test method in the test script - e.g functionality X in tag Y tests Z. Not just lists of lines of code 
  • LPG: yes 
  • JB : Add requirement IDs to the unit test code. Jim would just spend a day doing this.
  • JB: On test script is to just run ci_hsc. 
  • JC: Let's create one LVV-T per unit test. 


  • Leanne Guy Request Austin load up the mv requirements.  
  • Jeffrey Carlin Leanne Guy Map imported requirements to test cases following Jim's comments in each test case.  
  • Jim Bosch Analyze unit tests, annotate with associated requirements that can be covered by the test  
  • Jim Bosch Make PR for requirements review  
  • Jeffrey Carlin Point Jim to Jira location to add notes on code to run  


Next meeting is   

List of SST tasks (Confluence)

DescriptionDue dateAssigneeTask appears on
  • Eric Bellm Create RFC for three-stamp alerts, to communicate and garner feedback  
31 Dec 2021Eric Bellm2021-11-15 DM-SST Agenda and Meeting notes
  • Robert Lupton Clarify the meaning of time in the object table. 1 sentence description in sdm_schemas, can link to a short DMTN.  Update 2022-02-09: Meeting to resolve this on 2022-02-21  
28 Feb 2022Robert Lupton2018-11-05 DM SST F2F Agenda and Meeting notes
  • Robert Lupton and Leanne Guy — review all columns in the Source & DIASource table and decide whether to remove or move to a different table. The decisions on justification should be recorded in these tables. Proposed changes will be reviewed at a future SST meeting before going to LCR. Update 2022-02-09: Meeting to resolve this on 2022-02-21  
28 Feb 2022Robert Lupton2018-11-05 DM SST F2F Agenda and Meeting notes
  • Gregory Dubois-Felsmann Submit an RFC for the compressed-PVI requirements. Make clear that the requirement on quality may require further discussion can be postponed, and should not delay moving forwards on the 6 functional requirements, which need to be approved soon.   
27 May 2022Gregory Dubois-Felsmann2021-01-11 DM-SST Agenda and Meeting notes