...
| Infrastructure (end of Cherry) | ||
| Criteria | Result / Proof point | |
|---|---|---|
Working build system | ||
| If the software produced by the project requires building for use, the project MUST provide a working build system that can automatically rebuild the software from source code. | yes | LF jenkins |
| It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. | yes | LF jenkins |
| The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools. | yes | |
Automated test suite | ||
| The project MUST use at least one automated test suite that is publicly released as FLOSS (this test suite may be maintained as a separate FLOSS project). | ||
| A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. For example, "make check", "mvn test", or "rake test" (Ruby). | no (fix-priority low) | |
| It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality. | partial (fix-priority medium) | improvements possible |
| It is SUGGESTED that the project implement continuous integration (where new or changed code is frequently integrated into a central code repository and automated tests are run on the result). | yes | |
New functionality testing | ||
| The project MUST have a general policy (formal or not) that as major new functionality is added to the software produced by the project, tests of that functionality should be added to an automated test suite. As long as a policy is in place, even by word of mouth, that says developers should add tests to the automated test suite for major new functionality, select "Met. | partial (fix-priority medium) | |
| The project MUST have evidence that the test_policy for adding tests has been adhered to in the most recent major changes to the software produced by the project. Major functionality would typically be mentioned in the release notes. Perfection is not required, merely evidence that tests are typically being added in practice to the automated test suite when new major functionality is added to the software produced by the project. | no (fix-priority high) | |
| It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals. However, even an informal rule is acceptable as long as the tests are being added in practice. | no (fix-priority medium) | |
Warning flags | ||
| The project MUST enable one or more compiler warning flags, a "safe" language mode, or use a separate "linter" tool to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can implement this criterion in the selected language. | partial (fix-priority medium) | |
| The project MUST address warnings. | partial (fix-priority medium)yes | |
It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. Some warnings cannot be effectively enabled on some projects. What is needed is evidence that the project is striving to enable warning flags where it can, so that errors are detected early. | yes | All test failures, notified issues/bugs and Sonar warnings are acted on promptly. Such issues are tracked using Jira and Gerrit (See above). partial (fix-priority low) |
Security (16 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
...