QUALITY_DECLARATION.md

This document is a declaration of software quality for the email_examples package, based on the guidelines in REP-2004.

email_examples Quality Declaration

The package email_examples claims to be in the Quality Level 4 category.

Below are the rationales, notes, and caveats for this claim, organized by each requirement listed in the Package Quality Categories in REP-2004.

Version Policy [1]

Version Scheme [1.i]

email_examples uses semver according to the recommendation for ROS Core packages in the ROS 2 Developer Guide.

Version Stability [1.ii]

email_examples is not yet at a stable version, i.e. < 1.0.0. The current version can be found in its package.xml, and its change history can be found in its CHANGELOG.

Public API Declaration [1.iii]

email_examples has no public API.

API Stability Within a Released ROS Distribution [1.iv]/[1.vi]

email_examples has no public API.

ABI Stability Within a Released ROS Distribution [1.v]/[1.vi]

email_examples has no ABI.

Change Control Process [2]

email_examples follows most of the recommended guidelines for ROS Core packages in the ROS 2 Developer Guide.

Change Requests [2.i]

All changes will occur through a pull request, check ROS 2 Developer Guide for additional information.

Contributor Origin [2.ii]

This package uses DCO as its confirmation of contributor origin policy. There is an automated DCO check for change requests. More information can be found in CONTRIBUTING.

Peer Review Policy [2.iii]

Not all pull requests are currently peer-reviewed.

Continuous Integration [2.iv]

All pull requests must pass CI on Ubuntu.

Documentation Policy [2.v]

All pull requests must resolve related documentation changes before merging.

Documentation [3]

Feature Documentation [3.i]

email_examples has no proper features. There is however a list of the examples it provides.

Public API Documentation [3.ii]

email_examples has no API.

License [3.iii]

The license for email_examples is Apache 2.0, and a summary is in each source file, the type is declared in the package.xml manifest file, and a full copy of the license is in the LICENSE file.

There is an automated test using ament_copyright through ament_lint_common that ensures each file has a license statement.

Copyright Statements [3.iv]

The copyright holders each provide a statement of copyright in each source code file in email_examples.

There is an automated test using ament_copyright through ament_lint_common that ensures each file has a license statement.

Testing [4]

Feature Testing [4.i]

email_examples has no features.

Public API Testing [4.ii]

email_examples has no API.

Coverage [4.iii]

email_examples has no source code; coverage does not apply to example code.

Performance [4.iv]

Performance tests do not apply to email_examples.

Linters and Static Analysis [4.v]

email_examples uses and passes all the ROS 2 standard linters and static analysis tools for a C++ package as described in the ROS 2 Developer Guide. Passing implies there are no linter/static errors when testing against CI of supported platforms.

Currently, the latest test results can be seen here.

Dependencies [5]

Below are evaluations of each of email_examples's run-time and build-time dependencies that have been determined to influence the quality.

It has several "buildtool" dependencies, which do not affect the resulting quality of the package, because they do not contribute to the public library API.

It also has several test dependencies, which do not affect the resulting quality of the package, because they are only used to build and run the test code.

Direct and Optional Runtime ROS Dependencies [5.i]/[5.ii]

email_examples has no direct or optional run-time ROS dependencies.

Direct Runtime non-ROS Dependency [5.iii]

email_examples has the following run-time or build-time dependencies:

email

The email package provides an API to exchange strings with simple publish/subscribe & service middleware using emails.

It is Quality Level 4, see its Quality Declaration document.

Platform Support [6]

email_examples does not currently officially support all of the tier 1 platforms as described in REP-2000.

Security

Vulnerability Disclosure Policy [7.i]

This package has no formal Vulnerability Disclosure Policy, but it will try to conform to the policy described in REP-2006. Use the email address available on the profile of the owner of this repository. Submit your vulnerability report using email directly or using ROS 2 with rmw_email_cpp by publishing a std_msgs/String message.

Current Status

The table below compares the requirements in REP-2004 with the current state of the email_examples package.

Number	Requirement	Current state
1	Version policy
1.i	Version policy	✓
1.ii	Stable version	x
1.iii	Strictly declared public API	✓
1.iv	API stability policy	✓
1.v	ABI stability policy	✓
1.vi	API/ABI stablility policy within ROS distribution	✓
2	Change control process
2.i	All changes occur through change request	✓
2.ii	Confirmation of contributor origin	✓
2.iii	Peer review policy	x
2.iv	CI policy for change requests	✓
2.v	Documentation policy for change requests	✓
3	Documentation
3.i	Per feature documentation	✓
3.ii	Public API documentation	✓
3.iii	Declared license(s)	✓
3.iv	Copyright in source files	✓
3.v.a	Quality declaration linked to from README	✓
3.v.b	Centralized declaration available for peer review
3.v.c	References any Level N lists the package belongs to	✓
4	Testing
4.i	Feature items tests	✓
4.ii	Public API tests	✓
4.iii.a	Using coverage	✓
4.iii.b	Coverage policy	✓
4.iv.a	Performance tests	✓
4.iv.b	Performance tests policy	✓
4.v.a	Code style enforcement (linters)	✓
4.v.b	Use of static analysis tools	✓
5	Dependencies
5.i	Must not have lower level ROS dependencies	✓
5.ii	Optional ROS lower level dependencies	✓
5.iii	Justifies quality use of non-ROS dependencies	✓
6	Platform Support
6.i	Support targets tier 1 ROS platforms	x
7	Security
7.i	Vulnerability Disclosure Policy	x

Comparing this table to the Quality Level Comparison Chart of REP-2004 led us to conclude that this package qualifies for Quality Level 4.