niklas/ros2_tracing
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Merge branch '88-update-qd-after-1-0-0-release' into 'master'

Browse source 
Upgrade tracetools' QL to 3

Closes #88

See merge request micro-ROS/ros_tracing/ros2_tracing!171
This commit is contained in:
Ingo Lütkebohle 2020-05-04 09:22:24 +00:00
commit b96f6dfa4f
2 changed files with 9 additions and 8 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
README.md
View file

@ -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

15
tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md
View file

@ -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