OPC UA 1.05 and Milo 1.0.0 Release

[kevinherron]

Parent ticket for all 1.0 sub-tasks and issues.

• ECC Security Profiles
• Roles and Permissions #1248
• DynamicStructCodec
• JsonStructCodec
• Server-side Support for dynamic/run-time defined types
• Codegen artifacts from latest models
• Apply google-java-format to codebase #1355
• Convert existing TestNG tests to JUnit 5
• Migrate annotations to JSpecify?
• Convert AddressSpace to blocking API #1243

[apupier]

provided #1263 for the migration from testNG to JUnit 5

[andvasp]

Hi @kevinherron,

Since there are breaking changes in this version (specially #1223), would it not be good to have a version 0.7 based on 1.0?

Thanks!

[kevinherron]

I don't see the point in that.

[andvasp]

The point is that with a published version it will be easier to use (migrate our code), test and even suggest any modifications to the API prior to 1.0, which should be more stable. And you don't need to worry about all the requirements to release version 1.0.

A lot of other systems can enjoy this version too as mentioned here #1098.

Why not incremental releases?

Anyway thanks for the great job you are doing here!

[kevinherron]

You can develop against dev/1.0 (we are currently doing this at $WORK for our next big release).

I don't want to do an intermediate release with a bunch of breaking changes, when it's a certainty that 1.0 will introduce more. It's just extra work I'd be asking people to deal with. 1.0 will be one big ugly migration effort which you can start at any time you like by developing against dev/1.0.

When 1.0 is released I have no intention of supporting any 0.x releases, which will be another pain point for anyone who migrated to a hypothetical 0.7.x release.

[kevinherron]

Sorry for the gruff response, I've got a lot on my plate between now and the end of the year 😬

[andvasp]

Don't worry. I didn't consider it as a rugged response.

[stegal-bh]

Hi guys, any update about ETA for the 1.0.0 release ?

[kevinherron]

Nobody but me occasionally working on this. Maybe something in January? Who knows.

Anybody who has time to build and test with dev/1.0 branch would be helping me out.

[andvasp]

Hi @kevinherron!

I will try to test it.

[hyslopc]

@kevinherron FYI we moved our client from 0.6.14 to 1.0.0 without encountering any major issues. I definitely prefer the 1.0 API.

[kevinherron]

@kevinherron FYI we moved our client from 0.6.14 to 1.0.0 without encountering any major issues. I definitely prefer the 1.0 API.

@hyslopc thanks for the feedback! I know it's not a drop-in replacement, but I tried to use the last 5+ years of supporting the 0.x APIs to come up with something that is easier to figure out and still supports most/all use cases.

One of the biggest things I learned is that most people prefer a simple blocking API to an asynchronous/non-blocking API, and even that many users don't really understand how to use an asynchronous API or compose CompletableFuture results.

(not to say you didn't understand, just a general observation)

[johannwesely]

Hello Kevin,
I would like to ask cautiously if you can already give a more precise release date for 1.0 or if you can estimate when it will be released? Sorry to bother you but Managment ist asking stupid questions ㋡.

Greetings Johann

[kevinherron]

No sorry, no idea really. The time to work on Milo during my day job has not really materialized the way I thought, project is delayed delay delayed. At this point I'm considering waiting until I can test it at the OPC UA interoperability event in March.

[system24seven]

Is the initial list still current for outstanding items?

[kevinherron]

Is the initial list still current for outstanding items?

Yeah, fairly accurate. DynamicStructCodec has some work done on it. ECC will probably not make it for 1.0. Anything you’re interested in?

[system24seven]

I was thinking of looking into the more mundane things like the code style and JSpecify stuff if it still needs doing?

[kevinherron]

I was thinking of looking into the more mundane things like the code style and JSpecify stuff if it still needs doing?

JSpecify and unit test conversion would be useful.

Don’t worry about the code style, I’m actually going to adopt the Google check style rules and google-java-format util, so that task will be very trivial. Just recently decided on that so I’ll probably apply it soon.

[kevinherron]

😳 #1355

[system24seven]

#1356 should have all the JSpecify updates, no new declarations. For some reason #1355 has a broken workflow in github, if I fork it, it fails to build.

[kevinherron]

Thanks! Merged now.

[system24seven]

#1358 is apupier's JUnit migration code but I have merged in the dev/1.0 code and updated everything as best as I can.
There could be a few asserts that are mixed up, I went through everything relatively manually to do the changes in order to catch the edge cases. I can't see any testNG code in the project with text searches now, so thats a start.

[system24seven]

I would try and tackle other parts of this TODO list, I just struggle to find context and information on what is required for the tasks mentioned.

[kevinherron]

@system24seven I’ll think about some other tasks that could be done and try to write up tickets. This list isn’t exhaustive and was more of a “note to self” when I wrote it.

I do know that only the XML decoder is implemented, and it would be nice to have the encoder for 1.0 as well.