Call for Gardening Tasks

[James Feist]

On 4/10/2020 7:30 AM, krtaylor wrote:
> On 4/10/20 9:23 AM, Joseph Reynolds wrote:
>> On 4/9/20 5:19 PM, Vijay Khemka wrote:

I'd really like to see clang-tidy or other checks for style added into 
the build CI. The number of style violations waste lots of time in 
code-review for both the submitter and reviewers.

>>>
>>> I can see following small tasks which need refactoring
>>>
>>> IPMID:
>>>
>>> Some of standard commands are incomplete here like “restore power 
>>> policies”, some of sensors  sdrs etc.
>>>
>>> Dbus interface:
>>>
>>> Define more dbus interfaces being used in common code. I see multiple 
>>> repos has these interfaces hard coded. And I agree for client side 
>>> code would really be helpful.
>>>
>>> Phosphor package clean up:
>>>
>>> There are many phosphor packages in image which are added by default 
>>> and lots of systemd unit are running irrespective of platform 
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>> Documentation:
>>>
>>> Many repos doesn’t have proper documentations and it will be really 
>>> good to add and a root level documents giving an idea about different 
>>> features and mapped to multiple available repos.
>>>
>>
>> Can we flesh out the list of features?
>> https://github.com/openbmc/docs/blob/master/features.md
> 
> Heck, can we start by simply fleshing out what devs (companies) are/have 
> worked on for this release?  ;-)
> https://github.com/openbmc/openbmc/wiki/Current-Release-Content
> 
> - krtaylor
> 
>>
>> The openbmc/docs repo has good stuff for developers.  Can we take it 
>> the next level by adding:
>> - Guide for system integrators - source and build config, signing 
>> keys, etc.
>> - Guide for initial BMC setup - genesis boot, discovery, configure IP, 
>> certs, users, etc.
>> - Guide for system admins - ongoing tasks like auditing logs, firmware 
>> updates, etc.
>> - Security technical implementation guide (STIG).
>>
>> We've discussed these in the OpenBMC security working group, and I've 
>> collected some details here:
>> https://github.com/ibm-openbmc/dev/issues/1531
>>
>> I would be happy to contribute to these ... just looking for someone 
>> to collaborate with.  :-)
>>
>>> I will add more once I remember back.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> -Vijay
>>>
>>> *From: *openbmc <openbmc-bounces+vijaykhemka=fb.com at lists.ozlabs.org> 
>>> on behalf of Richard Hanley <rhanley at google.com>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 2:57 PM
>>> *To: *OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc at lists.ozlabs.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: Call for Gardening Tasks
>>>
>>> Here are some ideas I have as a wishlist for gardening/improvements.
>>>
>>> *Client Models for DBus*
>>>
>>> Right now sdbusplus does a pretty good job of making server 
>>> development easy.  However, I wish we had some more tooling on the 
>>> client side. I see a decent amount of repeated code around ObjectMapper.
>>>
>>> One way to separate concerns and cut down on boilerplate is to have a 
>>> model library. A call to a model would spin off an async method call 
>>> to manage the data marshalling, which would then call a lambda with a 
>>> fully reified object.  This is similar in concept to the way models 
>>> work in web development.
>>>
>>> *Unit Testing in bmcweb*
>>>
>>> This is pretty easy to say, and harder to do. I've been thinking a 
>>> bit about how to add in unit tests without them being too fragile. 
>>> (This was also something that geissonator mentioned).
>>>
>>> *DBus Virtualization and Playback*
>>>
>>> One thing that I think makes unit testing in some modules hard is 
>>> that there is a high barrier around mocking DBus.  I'm not sure the 
>>> best way to build this sustainably, but it would help improve our CI 
>>> testing.
>>>
>>> *OpenAPI for Redfish*
>>>
>>> So far the general impression I've seen with this is that the Swagger 
>>> output for OpenAPI isn't really good for C++.  Either the ergonomics 
>>> aren't really good, or there is a lot of code bloat.  I'd love to 
>>> have some OpenAPI bindings that work well in OpenBMC.
>>>
>>> *RUST!?!?*
>>>
>>> I'm betting a lot of people have thought about Rust. I'd love to hear 
>>> what people have tried and what are the sticking points.  Any 
>>> thoughts on what module/functionality could be a decent candidate for 
>>> breaking ground here?
>>>
>>
>> We discussed the rust language in the OpenBMC security working group 
>> meetings 2019-10-02
>> OpenBMC security working group minutes:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b7x9BaxsfcukQDqbvZsU2ehMq4xoJRQvLxxsDUWmAOI 
>>
>>
>>> -Richard
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:54 PM Richard Hanley <rhanley at google.com 
>>> <mailto:rhanley at google.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>     Last week I started a thread on Open BMC Gardening
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ozlabs.org_pipermail_openbmc_2020-2DApril_021100.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=v9MU0Ki9pWnTXCWwjHPVgpnCR80vXkkcrIaqU7USl5g&m=fAZZtmWl4g8Vngk56_Rs09hgS96TYQMeyRsyZKGHzAo&s=HXdHl56jq4p5eXbhyUHUkkmoF_hGh5tJWMUaVKQ68VM&e=>, 
>>>
>>>     and I wanted to kick off the process.
>>>
>>>     The basic idea here is to get a survey of various
>>>     improvement tasks throughout OpenBMC.  Some things might be small
>>>     refactoring or changes that can be done incrementally (i.e.
>>>     weeding the garden). Other tasks might be more research or
>>>     structural (i.e. excavating the garden).
>>>
>>>     Just getting these in writing can be helpful for others to gauge
>>>     what they should focus on. It also helps leave breadcrumbs for any
>>>     new developer interested in the subject.
>>>
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Thanks for your efforts to move this forward.
>>
>> Security wish list here: 
>> https://github.com/openbmc/openbmc/wiki/Security-working-group#security-feature-wish-list 
>>
>>
>> - Joseph
>>
>>>     So here's how I see this working. Anyone who has some ideas can
>>>     reply to this thread with a short to medium description.  Try to
>>>     avoid new features, and instead look at ways we could improve the
>>>     status quo. Think about changes and tools that would make your day
>>>     to day life better.
>>>
>>>     From there we can do a write up about what we know about the
>>>     issue.  This can function as an early stage design doc that gives
>>>     a broad overview on where the dev's head is at right now.
>>>
>>>     Finally, we can do a quarterly review to keep the garden
>>>     refreshed. Obviously, things can change between that time, but
>>>     having a semi-regular cadence will hopefully give us a better
>>>     chance of keeping this up to date.
>>>
>>>     - Richard
>>>
>>
>