From 3569f7428dc67c12d87d3e570da70e64c4c32886 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christophe Bedard Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:10:24 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Upgrade tracetools' QL to 3 Signed-off-by: Christophe Bedard --- README.md | 2 +- tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md | 15 ++++++++------- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index e22b4f1..91fd86f 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ Package containing a `ros2cli` extension to enable tracing. Library to support instrumenting ROS packages, including core packages. -This package claims to be in the **Quality Level 4** category, see the [Quality Declaration](./tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md) for more details. +This package claims to be in the **Quality Level 3** category, see the [Quality Declaration](./tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md) for more details. ### tracetools_launch diff --git a/tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md b/tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md index f73f51c..68a2575 100644 --- a/tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md +++ b/tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ This document is a declaration of software quality for the `tracetools` package, # `tracetools` Quality Declaration -The package `tracetools` claims to be in the **Quality Level 4** category. +The package `tracetools` claims to be in the **Quality Level 3** category. Below are the rationales, notes, and caveats for this claim, organized by each requirement listed in the [Package Requirements for Quality Level 1 in REP-2004](https://www.ros.org/reps/rep-2004.html). @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Below are the rationales, notes, and caveats for this claim, organized by each r ### Version Stability [1.ii] -`tracetools` is not currently at or above a stable version, i.e. `>= 1.0.0`. +`tracetools` is at or above a stable version, i.e. `>= 1.0.0`. ### Public API Declaration [1.iii] @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ The table below compares the requirements in REP-2004 with the current state of |--|--|--| |1| **Version policy** || |1.i| Version policy | ✓ | -|1.ii| Stable version | | +|1.ii| Stable version | ✓ | |1.iii| Strictly declared public API | ✓ | |1.iv| API stability policy | ✓ | |1.v| ABI stability policy | ✓ | @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ The table below compares the requirements in REP-2004 with the current state of |4.i| Feature items tests | ✓ | |4.ii| Public API tests | ✓ | |4.iii.a| Using coverage | ✓ | -|4.iii.a| Coverage policy | | +|4.iii.b| Coverage policy | | |4.iv.a| Performance tests | | |4.iv.b| Performance tests policy | | |4.v.a| Code style enforcement (linters) | ✓ | @@ -200,7 +200,8 @@ The table below compares the requirements in REP-2004 with the current state of \* : going forward -Comparing this table to the [Quality Level Comparison Chart of REP-2004](https://www.ros.org/reps/rep-2004.html#quality-level-comparison-chart) led us to conclude that this package qualifies for Quality Level 4. +Comparing this table to the [Quality Level Comparison Chart of REP-2004](https://www.ros.org/reps/rep-2004.html#quality-level-comparison-chart) led us to conclude that this package qualifies for Quality Level 3. -Missing for Quality Level 3: -* 1.ii Stable version +Missing for Quality Level 2: +* 5.iii Justifies quality use of non-ROS dependencies +* 7.i Vulnerability Disclosure Policy