Skip to content
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -17,13 +17,13 @@ This section identifies the technical context in which the protoEMDS Final Stack
| Existing test ID | `5.1.1.1` |
| Level | UC + Technical |
| ISO/IEC 25010 mapping | Functional suitability, Reliability, Security |
| Owner (tentative) | Casper (imec) |
| Owner (tentative) | Rosen (GATE) |
| Reviewer | Wilhelm |
| Deployment model assessed | TBD |
| Target environment | TBD |
| EDC version / release | TBD |
| Connector deployment reference | TBD |
| Assessment evidence | TBD |
| Deployment model assessed | CaaS / IONOS-managed k8s deployment |
| Target environment | CaaS / IONOS-managed k8s deployment |
| EDC version / release | emds-edc-connector 2428e79787ed4fb9cfecc6f10025504e7fb1a676, based on Eclipse EDC 0.10.0, emds-edc-connector-ui 15b794c87e2c5425590f816292f1c629ce8aae09 |
| Connector deployment reference | deployEMDS-k8s-deployment, branch main, commit 94aa638 |
| Assessment evidence | protoEMDS UI screenshots and data-sharing workflow observations |

The assessment should be completed using the deployment model for which evidence is realistically available. It is not mandatory to execute the same test in both CaaS and on-premise environments.

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -63,30 +63,26 @@ The system will score higher if the API is secured and utilizes standard methods

#### Assessment

Pending.

The assessment should be completed once consolidated technical evidence is available for the protoEMDS Final Stack deployment.

The result should clearly indicate which deployment model was assessed. It is acceptable to assess only one deployment model if evidence for the other deployment model is not available.
Successful data transfer observed. A data-sharing workflow was executed through the protoEMDS user interface using the CaaS deployment. The consumer's Transfer History page displays a transfer with status COMPLETED and status message Transfer Successful. The provider's Assets page is available at the SofiaPlan connector UI.

#### Deployment model assessed

| Deployment model | Status | Evidence | Consolidated assessment |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CaaS / IONOS-managed deployment | TBD | TBD | Complete this row only if evidence is collected from the IONOS-managed deployment. Otherwise mark as `Not assessed`. |
| On-premise deployment | TBD | TBD | Complete this row only if evidence is collected from an on-premise or locally managed deployment. Otherwise mark as `Not assessed`. |
| CaaS / IONOS-managed deployment | Executed | Screenshots of Provider Contract Definitions page; Consumer Catalog Browse, Contract Agreements and Transfer History pages | A completed data transfer is visible in the consumer's transfer history. |
| On-premise deployment | TBD | TBD | `Not assessed`. |

#### Measured results

| Requirement | Measured KPI |
| -|--------------|
| Initiate a data sharing | TBD |
| Retrieve data sharing information and status | TBD |
| Receive data sharing request outcome condition | TBD |
| Retrieve data sharing information of past data sharing actions. | TBD |
| Requirement | Measured KPI | Notes |
| -|--------------|-------------|
| Initiate a data sharing | 4 | The Provider (did:web:sofiaplan.87-106-178-203.sslip.io) made a Contract Definition for Asset ID Sofia-Metro-Stations (GeoJSON file) with Access Policy ID Check-Member-Name and Contract Policy ID Check-Member-Name. ![Provider Policies page](provider-policies.png) ![Provider Contract Definitions page](provider-contract-definitions.png) The Consumer (did:web:gate.87-106-178-203.sslip.io) browse the Provider's catalog by using Catalog Browse page with http://sofiaplan-controlplane:8082/api/dsp and did:web:sofiaplan.87-106-178-203.sslip.io and see the Contract Definition because he met the Access Policy DataspaceParticipantCredential.legalName EQ GATE Institute. ![Consumer Catalog Browse](consumer-catalog-browse.png) After a successful negotiation of contract by the consumer metting the Contract Policy a contract agreement is shown on Consumer Contract Agreemtents ![Consumer Contract Agreemtents](consumer-contract-agreements.png) |
| Retrieve data sharing information and status | 4 | The Consumer's Transfer History page displays the transfer with status `COMPLETED` and message `Transfer Successful`. ![Consumer Transfer History](consumer-transfer-history.png) |
| Receive data sharing request outcome condition | 3 | The HTTP data-server container of the consumer contains the file. But it is saved as JSON file. ![File in the HTTP server container](consumer-data-server-file.png) Related to GitHub issue #16 on edc_docker_deployment repo: http-server: preserve the original data format when saving received files https://github.com/deployEMDS/edc_docker_deployment/issues/16 |
| Retrieve data sharing information of past data sharing actions. | 4 | The Consumer's Transfer History page displays a completed transfer record. |

**Overall Calculation:** TBD
**Functional Suitability Quality Metric Score:** TBD
**Overall Calculation:** 3.75
**Functional Suitability Quality Metric Score:** 3.75

#### Notes

Expand Down
Loading