...
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| O-DU High | ||
| 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. | Met | Docker images can be found at https://nexus3.o-ran-sc.org |
| It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. | Met | Docker images can be found at https://nexus3.o-ran-sc.org |
| The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools. | Met | Docker images can be found at https://nexus3.o-ran-sc.org |
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). | ||
| Met | One automated test suite is available with UE Attach call flow. |
| A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. For example, "make check", "mvn test", or "rake test" (Ruby). |
| Met | The automation test suite is invocable through the shell script. |
| It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality. |
| Met | Covers UE Attach call flow. | |
| 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). |
| Partially met | New Jenkins job for the automation test suite to be added. | |
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. | Partially met | O-DU High code currently tested using test stubs which trigger various scenario in a sequence |
| 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 | ||
| . | Met | Stub-based testing for UE Attach call flow. Can be extended to test further features. |
| 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. |
| Met | Steps to run test stub are available under file "l2/docs/README" ""l |
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. | Partially met | Unable to add as a compiler flag since all existing warnings are a result of ASN tool generated code |
| The project MUST address warnings. | Met | The only warnings seen are from the code generated using ASN tool |
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. | Met | The only warnings seen are from the code generated using ASN tool |
Security (16 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
...
| O-DU High | ||
| Result / Proof point | ||
|---|---|---|
Static code analysis | ||
| At least one static code analysis tool (beyond compiler warnings and "safe" language modes) MUST be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that implements this criterion in the selected language. | Unmet | |
| It is SUGGESTED that at least one of the static analysis tools used for the static_analysis criterion include rules or approaches to look for common vulnerabilities in the analyzed language or environment. | Unmet | |
| All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. | Unmet | |
| It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily. | Unmet | |
Dynamic code analysis | ||
| It is SUGGESTED that at least one dynamic analysis tool be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release. | Met | Valgrind being used by developers |
| It is SUGGESTED that if the software produced by the project includes software written using a memory-unsafe language (e.g., C or C++), then at least one dynamic tool (e.g., a fuzzer or web application scanner) be routinely used in combination with a mechanism to detect memory safety problems such as buffer overwrites. If the project does not produce software written in a memory-unsafe language, choose "not applicable" (N/A). | UnmetMet | Valgrind not automatedDynamic code analysis through Valgrind analyzer. |
| It is SUGGESTED that the software produced by the project include many run-time assertions that are checked during dynamic analysis. | Met | Valgrind being used by developers |
| All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. | Met | Tests using valgrindValgrind |