-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Quality declaration #47
Conversation
3cca399
to
46089b4
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me on passing CI
Is the plan to merge this as-is even though it is "aspirational"? Currently things like:
Are not true, as in this case I'm not sure what we should do, but it seems misleading to merge this so that it's on the master branch when all the cases aren't actually done yet. On the other repositories my plan was to either leave the pr open until the items could get addressed, or change the quality declarations to be accurate for the current state before merging, even if that means we can't declare it level 1 for now. |
Leaving it open or modifying to be accurate are both acceptable options to me. Maybe a slight preference towards "getting something in" - so, accurate info, with aspirations potentially called out. |
I'll leave it up to others. I'm happy either leaving this open or editing this PR to just include the pieces that are true. |
46089b4
to
b04e564
Compare
Rebasing this PR |
b04e564
to
3fd32fd
Compare
Rebasing on master |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, a few nits
QUALITY_DECLARATION.md
Outdated
|
||
### Public API Documentation | ||
|
||
TODO upload docs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
remove for now and open an issue to track?
QUALITY_DECLARATION.md
Outdated
|
||
### Performance | ||
|
||
TODO document performance tests |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ditto
QUALITY_DECLARATION.md
Outdated
|
||
Changes are required to make a best effort to keep or increase coverage before being accepted, but decreases are allowed if properly justified and accepted by reviewers. | ||
|
||
Current coverage statistics can be viewed on [codecov.io](https://codecov.io/gh/j-rivero/rcpputils): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is it on Jose's account, seems fragile. Could we have that from the action in this repo?
I agree with William on this, I personally think that this should remain open as "Aspirational Quality Declaration" (as with other packages). If needed, a new PR could be opened with the current category, probably Level 3 |
This pull request has been mentioned on ROS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.ros.org/t/rfc-rep-2004-package-quality-categories/13150/1 |
+1, let's not merge thing which aren't true. One goal of this PR is to actually decide which quality level we're currently at. |
Signed-off-by: Stephen Brawner <brawner@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Brawner <brawner@gmail.com>
3fd32fd
to
2851821
Compare
We've decided to transition these aspirational QDs to more current status QDs. For the most part a lot of the content stays the same, but this won't have to sit around as an open PR anymore at least. |
Same comment ros2/rosidl_typesupport#67 (comment) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM - only one required fix in the contributing link
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
one minor fix and it's okay to merge
Signed-off-by: Stephen Brawner <brawner@gmail.com>
4c345dc
to
42645d9
Compare
This includes the quality declaration description to help bring this package to quality level 1. For the most part, this package is not missing large pieces for quality level 1. Code coverage is not great, and it's also not yet clear what performance tests should be included in this package. I couldn't find any obvious API issues.
Depends on #46