Hi LF people, I have a question on Jenkins: I have observed that when we pile up an amount of test (CSIT) jobs in the build queue, these jobs are not executed in the coming order (FIFO). Is this

Thanks Carol. Surekha and I will be joining the Hackfest on both days. Thanks, Vaishali From: Carol Sanders <carol.sanders@...> Date: Thursday, May 29, 2014 7:04 PM To: "'integration-dev@...'

+1 FRM (configuration model) should be more abstract, high-level then plugin level definition of flow, Since capabilities and functionality may yeld different use-cases (e.g. FRM configuration

Makes sense (FRM level having a more abstract rule - which is broken down into multiple specific rules in the plugin). At least theoretically - implementation wise how complicated this will be remains

I’m talking about a lot more than just setting defaults. To give a simple example, let’s say I want to match on all HTTP traffic. With OpenFlow today I need to add two separate rules: one for

Hi devs, I have just added Jenkins ofplugin mail "openflowplugin-jenkins@..." to the OF13 system test notification, so now those subscribed to this list will receive 2 kind of

OMG yes! This! This is an extension of ‘provide good defaults’. Currently the OpenFlow plugin provides defaults for many parameters (very open to discussion about what the correct defaults

Totally agree. Only issue I have heard from some is that the implementations can vary between hardware implementations. I tend to regard OVS as the reference implementation purely due to the

Sorry for the delay, meant to get this done Friday night, I’ve been grinding through some sticking points this weekend on trying to extend OXMs. Here is a rough draft for a start hacking on the

Now there is: https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1121 BR/Luis

Luis, I should be able to present it. 60 min or 90 mins slot would be good. I will see if I can pull in ON-LAB folks as well, if possible. I will not be able to join both days of hackfest , but can

Do we have a bug opened for this? I just want to make sure it doesn't fall off our radar. --Colin

Zoltan, That's a fair point - especially the following: forcing the same prerequisite rules on the abstract FlowCapable nodes is only one possibility. But it is also possible not to enforce those,

Hi, Sanity checking is indeed a great idea. But I think it would be important to clearly understand what needs to be sanity checked and what rather needs to be sanitized, or treated otherwise.

Prashanth, since we are building the documentation for this test, which information will you find more useful: - Existing flowmods that are verified as part of the integration system test - How to

Hi Prashanth and all, this is very new test so I believe the wiki material is still under construction. I just created a link in Integration main wiki where we will be posting the information about

Excellent, I feel a vHackfest coming on! Let’s get some content together and get rolling! -B From: Ed Henry <networkn3rd@...> Date: Friday, May 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM To: Christopher O'SHEA

+1 as well. I'd love to tackle low hanging fruit like this as well. -Ed On May 30, 2014 6:18 PM, "Christopher O'SHEA" <christopher.o.shea@...> wrote:

Hello All, I would like to verify flowmods as per the automated test in robot developed by Chris O'Shea. It would be great, if you can point me to the corresponding wiki/material. With regards, M.P.V.

Yea Brent awesome idea. Would love to get my hands dirty, so +1 to the instructions. Chris From: Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> Date: Friday, May 30, 2014 at 2:41 PM To: Brent Salisbury