...
| Infrastructure (end of Cherry) | ||
| Criteria | Result / Proof point | |
|---|---|---|
Bug-reporting process | ||
| The project MUST provide a process for users to submit bug reports (e.g., using an issue tracker or a mailing list). (URL required) | yes | Tools (mailing list, JIRA, Gerrit) |
| The project SHOULD use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues. | yes | Tools (mailing list, JIRA, Gerrit) |
| The project MUST acknowledge a majority of bug reports submitted in the last 2-12 months (inclusive); the response need not include a fix. | yes | |
| The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). | yes | |
| The project MUST have a publicly available archive for reports and responses for later searching. (URL required) | yes | JIRA: https://jira.o-ran-sc.org/projects/INF/issues |
Vulnerability report process | ||
| The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. (URL required) | yes | INF CII Badge - Bugs/Reports/Vulnerabilities |
If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. (URL required) Examples include a private defect report submitted on the web using HTTPS (TLS) or an email encrypted using OpenPGP. If vulnerability reports are always public (so there are never private vulnerability reports), choose "not applicable" (N/A). | yes |
|
The project's initial response time for any vulnerability report received in the last 6 months MUST be less than or equal to 14 days. If there have been no vulnerabilities reported in the last 6 months, choose "not applicable" (N/A). no (fix-priority low) | N/A | |
Quality (13 Points)
(Result/Proof point (column A: enter Met/Unmet; Column B: enter relevant URLs/comments)
| 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). | yes | Ex. make dryrun | ||
| 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) | yes | scripts | ||
| 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 | yes | |
| 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)yes | |||
| 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. | 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). | ||
...