Progress toward Quality Level 1

[Blast545]

This issue tracks the progression of packages in rosidl that have been deemed necessary for Quality Level 1 and a 1.0 version level. It follows the outline described in REP 2004.

The packages slated for Quality Level 1 for ROS 2 Foxy are:

• rosidl_runtime_c
• rosidl_runtime_cpp
• rosidl_typesupport_interface

Excluded for Quality Level 1 at this time:

• rosidl_adapter
• rosidl_cmake
• rosidl_generator_c
• rosidl_generator_cpp
• rosidl_parser
• rosidl_typesupport_introspection_c
• rosidl_typesupport_introspection_cpp

Progress common to all packages:

• Version Policy
  • semver according to the recommendation for ROS Core packages in the ROS 2 Developer Guide.
• Version >= 1.0.0
• Change Control Process
  • Recommended guidelines for ROS Core packages in the ROS 2 Developer Guide
• API and ABI stability within a ROS distribution
• Quality Declaration document for each package
• Vulnerability Disclosure Policy

Documentation

• Declared set of licenses
• Copyright statement in each source file
  • Checked with ament_copyright

Platform Support

• Supports all tier 1 platforms as described in REP-2000

Progress of specific packages

rosidl_runtime_c

Documentation

• Per-feature documentation.
• Per-item documentation in public API.
  • Hosted

Dependencies:

• Runtime "ROS" dependencies are level 1
  • rosidl_typesupport_interface -> QL2
• non-ROS dependencies are equivalent level 1
  • None

Testing:

• Must have system tests which cover all items in the "feature" documentation
• Must have system, integration, and/or unit tests which cover all of the public API
• Code Coverage > 95%:
  • • Must have code coverage tracking for the package -> here
  • • Must have and enforce a code coverage policy for new changes Policy
• Performance tests: not currently available.
• Linters and Static Analysis:
  • • Must have a code style and enforce it.
  • • Must use static analysis tools where applicable:
      -- See Linters ROS 2 Developer Guide

rosidl_runtime_cpp

Documentation

• Per-feature documentation.
• Per-item documentation in public API.
  • Hosted
• Quality Declaration document

Dependencies:

• Runtime "ROS" dependencies are level 1
  • rosidl_typesupport_interface -> QL2
• non-ROS dependencies are equivalent level 1
  • None

Testing:

• Must have system tests which cover all items in the "feature" documentation
• Must have system, integration, and/or unit tests which cover all of the public API
  • This package is mostly composed of types and functions that do not require testing.
• Code Coverage > 95%:
  • • Must have code coverage tracking for the package -> Here
  • • Must have and enforce a code coverage policy for new changes Policy
• Performance:
  • • Must have performance tests
• Linters and Static Analysis:
  • • Must have a code style and enforce it
  • • Must use static analysis tools where applicable:
      -- See Linters ROS 2 Developer Guide

rosidl_typesupport_interface

Documentation

• Per-feature documentation.
• Per-item documentation in public API.
  • Hosted

Dependencies:

• Runtime "ROS" dependencies are level 1
  • None
• non-ROS dependencies are equivalent level 1
  • None

Testing:

• Must have system tests which cover all items in the "feature" documentation
• Must have system, integration, and/or unit tests which cover all of the public API
• Code Coverage:
  • • Must have code coverage tracking for the package. Not needed, package defines C macro definitions.
  • • Must have and enforce a code coverage policy for new changes Policy
• Performance:
  • • Must have performance tests
• Linters and Static Analysis:
  • • Must have a code style and enforce it
  • • Must use static analysis tools where applicable:
      -- See Linters ROS 2 Developer Guide

[chapulina]

@Blast545 , when the generators were split in 2 in #442 we started focusing on the rosidl_runtime_X packages instead of the generators. Do you think you could add those to this issue? Their QDs are up-to-date for level 2 since #499 and #500, so this should be quick. Thanks!

[Blast545]

@chapulina done. I added a couple of extra links to be more clear about the statements of this issue. Let me know if you think this is fine, to update other issues with this format.

[chapulina]

Looks great, thanks!

[chapulina]

All 3 packages are level 1! 🎉