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

Add quality declaration for LTTng and update tracetools' QD

Browse source 
Backport of 3c3e052ae3366c0b5f9abc3a8a536b0337675636 from !179

Signed-off-by: Christophe Bedard <bedard.christophe@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
Christophe Bedard 2020-06-17 08:37:37 -04:00
parent 3b717eb113
commit f45370fabd
3 changed files with 221 additions and 10 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

17
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 3** category.
The package `tracetools` claims to be in the **Quality Level 2** 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).
@ -63,8 +63,6 @@ All merge requests must resolve related documentation changes before merging.
## Documentation [3]
`tracetools` does not currently follow all the recommended guidelines for ROS Core packages in the [ROS 2 Developer Guide](https://index.ros.org/doc/ros2/Contributing/Developer-Guide/#documentation).
### Feature Documentation [3.i]
`tracetools` has [documentation](../doc/design_ros_2.md) for all of its features, and new features require documentation before being added.
@ -137,7 +135,10 @@ This package does not have any optional runtime ROS dependencies.
### Direct Runtime non-ROS Dependency [5.iii]
`tracetools` has a run-time dependency on [LTTng](https://lttng.org/docs/v2.11/). A Quality Level review for LTTng has yet to be done.
`tracetools` has a run-time dependency on [LTTng](https://lttng.org/docs/v2.11/).
LTTng provides tracing capabilities.
It is **Quality Level 1**, see its [Quality Declaration document](../LTTng_QUALITY_DECLARATION.md).
## Platform Support [6]
@ -182,6 +183,7 @@ The table below compares the requirements in REP-2004 with the current state of
|3.iv| Copyright in source files | ✓ |
|3.v.a| Quality declaration linked to from README | ✓ |
|3.v.b| Centralized declaration available for peer review | |
|3.v.c| References any Level N lists the package belongs to | ✓ |
|4| **Testing** ||
|4.i| Feature items tests | ✓ |
|4.ii| Public API tests | ✓ |
@ -194,7 +196,7 @@ The table below compares the requirements in REP-2004 with the current state of
|5| **Dependencies** ||
|5.i| Must not have lower level ROS dependencies | ✓ |
|5.ii| Optional ROS lower level dependencies | ✓ |
|5.iii| Justifies quality use of non-ROS dependencies | |
|5.iii| Justifies quality use of non-ROS dependencies | ✓ |
|6| **Platform Support** ||
|6.i| Support targets tier 1 ROS platforms | ✓ |
|7| **Security** ||
@ -202,7 +204,4 @@ 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 3.
Missing for Quality Level 2:
* 5.iii Justifies quality use of non-ROS dependencies
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 2.