VNF Requirements updates for Casablanca #doc #vnfrqts #vvp

Eric Debeau


Testing VVP for Casablanca, I noticed some modifications on the tests executed.

VVP now tests that the meta-data parameters (vnf_id, vnf_name, vf_module_id, ...) must not be enumerated in HOT env file.
"Requirement: R-20856

A VNF’s Heat Orchestration Template’s OS::Nova::Server resource property metadata key/value pair vnf_id parameter vnf_id MUST NOT be enumerated in the Heat Orchestration Template’s environment file."

It will impact the way we are working internally: we first test that the Heat template works fine in our OpenStack environment without using ONAP to test that the Heat template is ok. With the new constraints, it will imply to remove these meta-data from Heat yaml file when we perform our pre-ONAP tests.

I understand that such values must be populated via ONAP during the run-time. But, why a such strong requirement (was defined for Beijing, but not tested via VVP) ? 
Is it possible to review this level of constraint ?

I can also state that the documentation is better aligned with the code and that the new theme for the documentation is better and easier to read. A new step for the usability. Congrats to VVP,VNFRQTS teams and to Rich !

I also believe that we should keep track about evolutions between various release.

Best Regards


Steve Stark

Hi Eric,
Glad to see that the VVP validation scripts are actively being leveraged. 
There are many HEAT requirements enumerated in the VNFRQTs project and the requirement you highlighted (R-20856) has been there since Amsterdam (although we have more recently restructured that section so that each requirement is individually numbered).  We are constantly adding to the VVP validation script repository as we work towards a goal of having complete coverage of all HEAT MUST/MUST NOT level requirements verified by a VVP validation scripts.  The validation script in question was added as part of the Casablanca release.
I understand the impact that environment file parameters can have when doing manual testing - we're looking into ways to handle this so that these kind of errors can be toggled when doing manual testing/instantiation. Ultimately, our goal is to have a validation suite that verifies that the HEAT template provided is ONAP-compliant HEAT and ready for onboarding – but here’s a couple of workarounds you can use when manually testing:
There is one script that tests for environment file compliance - . If you are running the tests from the command and you remove this file, running the test suite will not flag an error for parameters that ARE/ARE NOT in the environment file. Alternatively, you can also ignore errors from this script while performing validations on templates that will be manually instantiated.
Our weekly calls are Tuesdays 11 AM ET, are you able to join one to discuss more?