Fluxnova Maintainers Meeting - 26/03/2026 #133
Description
Date
Thursday 26 MAR 2026 - 9am EST / 2pm GMT
Meeting notices
-
FINOS Project leads are responsible for observing the FINOS guidelines for running project meetings. Project maintainers can find additional resources in the FINOS Maintainers Cheatsheet.
-
All participants in FINOS project meetings are subject to the LF Antitrust Policy, the FINOS Community Code of Conduct and all other FINOS policies.
-
FINOS meetings involve participation by industry competitors, and it is the intention of FINOS and the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas, and be aware of, and not participate in, any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws. Please contact legal@finos.org with any questions.
-
FINOS project meetings may be recorded for use solely by the FINOS team for administration purposes. In very limited instances, and with explicit approval, recordings may be made more widely available.
Tracking Attendance
Note: Meeting participants are expected to add a comment to this GitHub issue in order that we can track attendance of Fluxnova project meetings. Please do this at the start of the meeting.
Agenda
- Convene & roll call, review meeting notices (5mins)
- Review action items from previous meeting (5mins)
- Release 2.0
- Following PRs need reviews for release 2.0:
- Code Coverage
- Documentation resolution update @gaborherr-db @gaborherr
- Check review status of open PRs Fluxnova Project Board
- AOB & Adjourn (5mins)
Minutes
Note: Meeting minutes are AI generated and may not be fully accurate
Quick Recap
The team held a meeting to discuss release preparations and follow-up items from previous calls. The main focus was on Release 2.0, which was delayed by one week due to two pending PRs requiring review and a critical issue with API spec objects that needed to be reverted to maintain compatibility.
The team also discussed penetration testing plans for the sandbox environment, with a team member agreeing to coordinate with a family member who is a professional penetration tester.
A participant presented plans for implementing code coverage using JaCoCo and SonarQube, with the goal of eventually enforcing an 80% coverage requirement for new code.
The conversation ended with a review of several PRs that needed to be addressed before the release could proceed, with a designated reviewer taking responsibility for them.
Action Items / Next Steps
- Olivier: Arrange for penetration testing of the sandbox environment and share the resulting report with the group.
- Chris: Set up JaCoCo and SonarQube for code coverage in the project, starting with visibility and later adding an 80% coverage gate for new code.
- Gabor: Review and potentially update check style configuration/PR; coordinate with Prakash and team from Fidelity for review and possible contribution.
- Olivier: Follow up with Sean in a separate call regarding Windows signing credentials and provide update to the group if possible by mid-next week.
- Edson: Continue work on roadmap and style guide pages for the website.
Summary
Meeting Agenda Introduction
The meeting began with participants exchanging greetings and brief personal updates regarding their respective locations and local weather. The facilitator then introduced the agenda for the day's discussion and shared it in the chat.
Release Planning and Logistics
The team discussed upcoming meeting logistics. A team member raised concerns about a release scheduled for the next day, noting pending PRs and potential issues that might require postponing the release by one week.
Another participant requested a discussion on code coverage setup, which was added to the agenda. The team then began reviewing action items from the previous week, specifically regarding conference sessions and potential keynote announcements.
Conference Planning and Sponsorship
The group discussed plans for an upcoming industry event, including a potential 5–10 minute announcement once marketing begins promoting keynotes.
Regarding sponsorship, a lead member is waiting for a revised prospectus from the foundation to adjust logo requirements. The revised document will be shared shortly, and the team was requested to provide potential sponsor contacts to help secure funding.
Penetration Testing Strategy
The team discussed testing approaches for the core product and sandbox environment. It was explained that while internal penetration testing is focused on public-facing APIs, detailed results cannot always be shared with the community.
A representative shared a similar internal approach, noting that internal-only components require less external scrutiny. The team agreed to proceed with testing the sandbox environment, particularly for contributed UI components, with one member offering to coordinate the effort.
Ongoing Tasks and Issue Tracking
Several ongoing tasks were reviewed. A participant confirmed they had created a tracking issue for adding code coverage tools. Another member agreed to look for existing issues related to check-style formatting.
The UI lead confirmed that the roadmap page and style guide remain on the to-do list but are currently lower priority than the release page.
Project Updates and Migration Progress
The facilitator provided updates on the standing agenda for monthly public calls and updated the frequency of the AI working group.
It was confirmed that the Docker image had been published and tested successfully. The migration PR has been merged, and a private support repository has been created.
The section concluded with a discussion on contributing backward compatibility plugins.
Release 2.0 Challenges
The team addressed challenges with Release 2.0, including breaking issues found during backward compatibility testing and the need to revert certain API spec changes.
It was explained that while a major migration PR had been approved, two additional PRs were still required from a corporate perspective. A deployment failure was identified that requires reverting specific request and response objects.
The team aims to create a release candidate early next week.
Release 2.0 PR Review
The team discussed PRs requiring immediate review, including a new count API necessary for UI contributions.
A query was made regarding Windows signing credentials for the modeler; while still pending, there is a possibility of receiving them soon. The one-week delay in the release provides additional time to finalize these pending items.
Application Draft Release Planning
The team discussed releasing a draft version of the application to circumvent internal signing issues.
It was confirmed that Mac versions are functional and can be distributed via GitHub, though Windows versions will not be available initially. The team agreed to aim for a publication date that avoids blocking upcoming developer workshops.
Binary Distribution and Code Coverage
Regarding distribution, the team agreed to maintain the existing GitHub releases link on the website rather than building a custom download page.
On the topic of code coverage, a developer was assigned to integrate JaCoCo and SonarQube. The initial phase will focus on visibility and reporting before moving to a strict 80% coverage requirement for new code, as formalized in a recent project issue.