deployEMDS · xdxxxdx · Feb 6, 2025 · Feb 6, 2025 · Feb 6, 2025 · Feb 6, 2025
diff --git a/.github/workflows/Trivy-secrete-scan.yaml b/.github/workflows/Trivy-secrete-scan.yaml
@@ -1,27 +1,32 @@
-name: build
+name: Code Scanning
+
 on:
   push:
     branches:
       - main
-  pull_request:
+
+permissions:
+  actions: read
+  security-events: write
+
 jobs:
-  build:
-    name: Build
-    runs-on: ubuntu-20.04
+  code-scanning:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
     steps:
       - name: Checkout code
-        uses: actions/checkout@v4
+        uses: actions/checkout@v3
 
-      - name: Run Trivy vulnerability scanner in repo mode
-        uses: aquasecurity/trivy-action@0.28.0
-        with:
-          scan-type: 'fs'
-          ignore-unfixed: true
-          format: 'sarif'
-          output: 'trivy-results.sarif'
-          severity: 'CRITICAL'
+      - name: Run Trivy
+        env:
+          TRIVY_IGNORE_UNFIXED: true
+          TRIVY_SEVERITY: CRITICAL
+          TRIVY_FORMAT: sarif
+          TRIVY_OUTPUT: trivy-results.sarif
+        run: |
+          trivy fs --ignore-unfixed --severity CRITICAL --format sarif --output trivy-results.sarif .
 
-      - name: Upload Trivy scan results to GitHub Security tab
+      - name: Upload SARIF
         uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v3
         with:
-          sarif_file: 'trivy-results.sarif'
+          sarif_file: trivy-results.sarif
+          token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
diff --git a/design_decisions/repository_mgmt/create_result_table.py b/design_decisions/repository_mgmt/create_result_table.py
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ def find_score_in_results(result_files, keyword):
 
 def _filter_result_data(results):
     """Filter results to include only those that are minimal and in phase 1 or that have at least one valid result"""
-    return [r for r in results if ((r['minimal'] == 'Yes' and r['phase'] in ['1']) or (r['result_edc'] != 'N/A' or r['result_fiware'] != 'N/A'))]
+    return [r for r in results if ((r['minimal'] == 'Yes' and r['phase'] in ['1']) or (r['result_edc'] != 'N/A' or r['result_fiware'] != 'N/A' or r['result_simpl'] != 'N/A'))]
 
 
 def _prepare_result_data(results, github_base_url):
@@ -160,6 +160,7 @@ def _prepare_result_data(results, github_base_url):
             'result_edc': result['result_edc'],
             'result_pontus_x': result['result_pontus_x'],
             'result_fiware': result['result_fiware'],
+            'result_simpl': result['result_simpl'],
         })
 
     return prepared_results

diff --git a/design_decisions/repository_mgmt/templates/score_matrix.jinja2 b/design_decisions/repository_mgmt/templates/score_matrix.jinja2
@@ -6,8 +6,12 @@ import Link from '@site/src/components/Link';
 
 # Score matrix
 
-| Test ID | Customer Journey | Test Description | Phase | EDC MVD | Fiware  | Simpl Agent |
+| Test ID | Customer Journey | Test Description | Phase | EDC MVD | Fiware  | Simpl Agent\* |
 |---------|------------------|------------------|-------|---------|---------|-------------|
 {%- for result in results %}
 | <Link color="#25c2a0">[{{ result.test_id }}]({{ result.test_link }})</Link> | {{ result.customer_journey }} | {{ result.description }} | Phase {{result.phase}} {% if result.minimal == "Yes" %}Minimal{% else %}Extended{% endif %} | {{ result.result_edc }} | {{ result.result_fiware }} | {{ result.result_simpl }} |
 {%- endfor %}
+
+**Disclaimer:**
+
+\* The results presented in this document reflect a snapshot in time of the **_[Simpl OPEN](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open) version 1.0_**, as of **_February 2025_**. Please note that Simpl is a continuously evolving project. Future updates will introduce new features, enhancements, and improvements, addressing any identified limitations and expanding its capabilities over time.
diff --git a/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_1/result_simpl.md b/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_1/result_simpl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+## [2.1.1.1] Data product publication: Provision - Data source endpoint provisioning
+### Stack: Simpl
+
+### Statement of assessment
+#### Environment
+[TODO] Describe the environment used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Tested quality metric and method
+[TODO] Describe the quality metric and method used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)
+[TODO] Describe the comparative criteria used for the test / assessment. If possible, align with the criteria used for the same test in the other stack(s).
+
+#### Expected output
+[TODO] Describe the expected output and how the ranking is calculated
+
+### Results
+#### Assessment
+[TODO] Describe the assessment results (qualitative results), if applicable. Include screenshots, logs, etc, if necessary.
+
+#### Measured results
+[TODO] Describe the measured results (quantitative results), if applicable. Rank the results according to the expected output, if applicable.
+
+#### Notes
+[TODO] Add notes, if necessary.
diff --git a/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_2/result_simpl.md b/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_2/result_simpl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+## [2.1.1.2] Data product publication: Provision - Data source endpoint provisioning
+### Stack: Simpl
+
+### Statement of assessment
+#### Environment
+[TODO] Describe the environment used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Tested quality metric and method
+[TODO] Describe the quality metric and method used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)
+[TODO] Describe the comparative criteria used for the test / assessment. If possible, align with the criteria used for the same test in the other stack(s).
+
+#### Expected output
+[TODO] Describe the expected output and how the ranking is calculated
+
+### Results
+#### Assessment
+[TODO] Describe the assessment results (qualitative results), if applicable. Include screenshots, logs, etc, if necessary.
+
+#### Measured results
+[TODO] Describe the measured results (quantitative results), if applicable. Rank the results according to the expected output, if applicable.
+
+#### Notes
+[TODO] Add notes, if necessary.
diff --git a/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_3/result_simpl.md b/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_3/result_simpl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+## [2.1.1.3] Data product publication: Provision - Data source endpoint provisioning
+### Stack: Simpl
+
+### Statement of assessment
+#### Environment
+
+The testing environment is an IMEC self-deployed instances of [Simpl-Open](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open) on
+an IONOS Kubernetes cluster, the version used is 1.0.
+
+#### Tested quality metric and method
+
+The quality metric for this test is based on the criteria outlined in [iso27001_kpis_subkpis.xlsx](../../../../../design_decisions/background_info/iso27001_kpis_subkpis.xlsx). In Phase 1,
+the focus is on the Functional Suitability metric. For detailed information, please refer to the [Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)](./test.md#comparative-criteria-checklists-) section in the test description.
+
+#### Expected output
+Evaluate the level of support for the following data formats
+
+- GTFS - [Public dataset](https://opendata-ajuntament.barcelona.cat/data/dataset/c46503e3-cec6-4032-894d-1063b7a365ee/resource/1c92542e-0346-4df5-9824-d7753ab02e33/download) with direct download via HTTPS
+- GTFS-RT - [Public dataset](https://api.data.gov.my/gtfs-realtime/vehicle-position/ktmb/) via APIs
+- DATEX-II - [Public dataset](https://opendata.emel.pt/cycling/biciparks?skip=1&limit=1) via APIs
+- DATX II Light - No available datasets for this data format, tests are skipped
+- GBFS - [Public dataset](https://opendata.emel.pt/cycling/biciparks?skip=1&limit=1) via APIs
+- WMS/WFS - [Public dataset](https://openmaps.gov.bc.ca/geo/ows?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetCapabilities) via APIs
+
+Also access through APIs.
+Access to private APIs is tested using the AMB mobilitat endpoint.
+
+### Results
+#### Assessment
+[Simpl-Open](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open) uses the EDC connector to implement the [Dataspace Protocol](https://docs.internationaldataspaces.org/ids-knowledgebase/dataspace-protocol). 
+The HttpData Plane used in the EDC test for all the above formats is also integrated into [Simpl-Open](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open).
+
+Therefore, from a functional perspective, [Simpl-Open](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open) supports the above formats as the EDC connector does. 
+
+However, the main implementation of Simpl for data space focuses on user interface facilities.
+The current built-in data offering template checks for IonosS3 storage data address, not HttpData. 
+
+But the above resources can be stored in and consumer to IonosS3: [edc-ionos-s3](https://github.com/Digital-Ecosystems/edc-ionos-s3/tree/main) without any problem.
+
+#### Measured results
+
+The Simpl stack fully supports all six types of data planes, same to the EDC, as explained in this test. Consequently, it is evaluated with the highest score in each of the criteria used to evaluate this test, as shown in the table below.
+
+| **Criterion**                | **Description**                                                                                     | **Score (0-4)** | **Explanation**                                                                  |
+|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+| **Functional Completeness**   | Technical requirements cover all the specified tasks and user objectives.                          | 4               | Artifacts can store a URL to any file format, and the file is stored in S3 storage. |
+| **Functional Correctness**    | Technical requirements meet results with the needed degree of precision.                           | 4               | The S3 storage can be easily configured for providing and consuming data.        |
+| **Functional Appropriateness**| Technical requirements facilitate the accomplishment of specified tasks and objectives.            | 4               | The data plane is well implemented for data transfer.                             |
+
+**Functional Suitability Quality Metric Score: 4**
+#### Notes
+The current testing version of Simpl is a very basic Minimum Viable Product solution, version 1.0.   
diff --git a/...ct_publication/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_3/test.md b/...ct_publication/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_3/test.md
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Functional suitability
 #### ISO25010 Quality description
 Can the provider integrate different data source methods (APIs, data bases, file systems, etc.)
 
-### Evaluation Criteria 
+### Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)
 The criteria used to measure the results was the one specified by the Data Product Publication ISO25010 Quality file regarding Functional Suitability.
 
 

diff --git a/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_4/result_simpl.md b/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_4/result_simpl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+## [2.1.1.4] Data product publication: Provision - Data source endpoint provisioning
+### Stack: Simpl
+
+### Statement of assessment
+#### Environment
+[TODO] Describe the environment used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Tested quality metric and method
+[TODO] Describe the quality metric and method used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)
+[TODO] Describe the comparative criteria used for the test / assessment. If possible, align with the criteria used for the same test in the other stack(s).
+
+#### Expected output
+[TODO] Describe the expected output and how the ranking is calculated
+
+### Results
+#### Assessment
+[TODO] Describe the assessment results (qualitative results), if applicable. Include screenshots, logs, etc, if necessary.
+
+#### Measured results
+[TODO] Describe the measured results (quantitative results), if applicable. Rank the results according to the expected output, if applicable.
+
+#### Notes
+[TODO] Add notes, if necessary.
diff --git a/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_5/result_simpl.md b/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_5/result_simpl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+## [2.1.1.5] Data product publication: Provision - Data source endpoint provisioning
+### Stack: Simpl
+
+### Statement of assessment
+#### Environment
+[TODO] Describe the environment used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Tested quality metric and method
+[TODO] Describe the quality metric and method used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)
+[TODO] Describe the comparative criteria used for the test / assessment. If possible, align with the criteria used for the same test in the other stack(s).
+
+#### Expected output
+[TODO] Describe the expected output and how the ranking is calculated
+
+### Results
+#### Assessment
+[TODO] Describe the assessment results (qualitative results), if applicable. Include screenshots, logs, etc, if necessary.
+
+#### Measured results
+[TODO] Describe the measured results (quantitative results), if applicable. Rank the results according to the expected output, if applicable.
+
+#### Notes
+[TODO] Add notes, if necessary.
diff --git a/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_6/result_simpl.md b/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_6/result_simpl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+## [2.1.1.6] Data product publication: Provision - Data source endpoint provisioning
+### Stack: Simpl
+
+### Statement of assessment
+#### Environment
+[TODO] Describe the environment used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Tested quality metric and method
+[TODO] Describe the quality metric and method used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)
+[TODO] Describe the comparative criteria used for the test / assessment. If possible, align with the criteria used for the same test in the other stack(s).
+
+#### Expected output
+[TODO] Describe the expected output and how the ranking is calculated
+
+### Results
+#### Assessment
+[TODO] Describe the assessment results (qualitative results), if applicable. Include screenshots, logs, etc, if necessary.
+
+#### Measured results
+[TODO] Describe the measured results (quantitative results), if applicable. Rank the results according to the expected output, if applicable.
+
+#### Notes
+[TODO] Add notes, if necessary.
diff --git a/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_7/result_simpl.md b/...cation/provision/data_source_endpoint_provisioning/test_2_1_1_7/result_simpl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+## [2.1.1.7] Data product publication: Provision - Data source endpoint provisioning
+### Stack: Simpl
+
+### Statement of assessment
+#### Environment
+[TODO] Describe the environment used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Tested quality metric and method
+[TODO] Describe the quality metric and method used for the test / assessment
+
+#### Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)
+[TODO] Describe the comparative criteria used for the test / assessment. If possible, align with the criteria used for the same test in the other stack(s).
+
+#### Expected output
+[TODO] Describe the expected output and how the ranking is calculated
+
+### Results
+#### Assessment
+[TODO] Describe the assessment results (qualitative results), if applicable. Include screenshots, logs, etc, if necessary.
+
+#### Measured results
+[TODO] Describe the measured results (quantitative results), if applicable. Rank the results according to the expected output, if applicable.
+
+#### Notes
+[TODO] Add notes, if necessary.
diff --git a/...n/reuse_or_create_usage_control_policies_functions/test_2_1_3_1/result_simpl.md b/...n/reuse_or_create_usage_control_policies_functions/test_2_1_3_1/result_simpl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+## [2.1.3.1] Data product publication: Provision - Reuse or create usage control policies / functions
+### Stack: Simpl
+
+### Statement of assessment
+#### Environment
+The testing environment is an IMEC self-deployed instances of [Simpl-Open](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open) on an IONOS Kubernetes cluster, the version used is 1.0.
+
+#### Tested quality metric and method
+The quality metric for this test is based on the criteria outlined in [iso27001_kpis_subkpis.xlsx](../../../../../design_decisions/background_info/iso27001_kpis_subkpis.xlsx). In Phase 1, the focus is on the Functional Suitability metric. For detailed information, please refer to the [Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)](./test.md#comparative-criteria-checklists-) section in the test description.
+
+#### Expected output
+The test aims to assess how Usage Control Policies are deployed. 
+
+### Results
+#### Assessment
+
+[Simpl-Open](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open) utilizes the [Simpl EDC Connection](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open/development/gaia-x-edc/simpl-edc) to handle the [Dataspace Protocol](https://docs.internationaldataspaces.org/ids-knowledgebase/dataspace-protocol). 
+The [Simpl EDC Connection](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open/development/gaia-x-edc/simpl-edc) includes the management API and policy engines of EDC. 
+
+Consequently, from an API perspective, Simpl shares the same API functions for managing policies as detailed in [result_edc_vc.md](result_edc_vc.md). 
+
+However, based on observations, the development focus of Simpl are on user interfaces, such as [simpl-sd-ui](https://code.europa.eu/simpl/simpl-open/development/gaia-x-edc/simpl-sd-ui), which allows data providers to create a self-description of the data product, including access and usage policies. 
+These user interfaces do not support functions for deletion or extending usage functions.
+
+#### Measured results
+Since Simpl's is packaged for Kubernetes, API access is challenging for its target users. However, as it uses EDC component's management APIs, the same API functions are available, and similar results should be shared between these two stacks. Therefore, the following scores are assigned to the test:
+The criteria used to measure the results was the one specified by the Data Product Publication ISO25010 Quality file regarding Functional Suitability. Individual scores per action are detailed in the table below, as some actions received different scores according to the defined criteria.
+
+| Action                                       | **Functional Completeness**    | **Functional Correctness**     | **Functional Appropriateness**            | Explanation |
+|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------|
+| Create a new policy                          | 4                              | 4                              | 4                                         |             |
+| Assign a usage policy to a sharing agreement | 4                              | 4                              | 4                                         |             |
+| Delete a sharing agreement                   | 4                              | 4                              | 4                                         |             |
+| Delete a usage policy                        | 4                              | 4                              | 2                                         |             |
+| Update existing sharing agreement            | 4                              | 4                              | 3                                         |             |
+| Update existing policy                       | 4                              | 4                              | 4                                         |             |
+| Extend the usage policy language             | 1                              | 1                              | 1                                         |             |
+| Create new policy enforcement functions      | 1                              | 1                              | 1                                         |             |
+| **Overall**      | **(4 * 6 + 1 * 2) / 8 = 3.25** | **(4 * 6 + 1 * 2) / 8 = 3.25** | **(4 * 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 * 2) / 8 = 2.875**   |             |
+
+Overall score calculation: (3.25 + 3.25 + 2.875) / 3 = 3.125
+
+**Functional Suitability Quality Metric Score: 3.125**
+#### Notes
+
+The current testing version of Simpl is a very basic Minimum Viable Product solution, version 1.0.   
diff --git a/...provision/reuse_or_create_usage_control_policies_functions/test_2_1_3_1/test.md b/...provision/reuse_or_create_usage_control_policies_functions/test_2_1_3_1/test.md
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Functional suitability
 #### ISO25010 Quality description
 The data producer uses an API to deploy and configure usage control policies.
 
-### Evaluation Criteria 
+### Comparative criteria (checklists, ...)
 The criteria used to measure the results was the one specified by the Data Product Publication ISO25010 Quality file regarding Functional Suitability.
 
 

diff --git a/...create_usage_control_policies_functions/test_2_1_3_2/images/simpl_policy_ui.png b/...create_usage_control_policies_functions/test_2_1_3_2/images/simpl_policy_ui.png
diff --git a/.../reuse_or_create_usage_control_policies_functions/test_2_1_3_2/result_edc_vc.md b/.../reuse_or_create_usage_control_policies_functions/test_2_1_3_2/result_edc_vc.md
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ For current phase (phase 1), the test focus on the Functional suitability qualit
 
 #### Expected output
 
-The test aims to assess the ease of use of deploying Usage Control Policies in regards to the availability of a user interface.
+The test aims to assess the ease of use of deploying Usage Control Policies in regard to the availability of a user interface.
 
 ### Results