Qt Quality Gate Criteria: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "{{Cleanup | reason=Auto-imported from ExpressionEngine.}} Category:Developing_Qt::QA = Qt Quality Gate Criteria = These criteria are the '''minimum standard''' for subm...") |
m (Updated wording (no master branch anymore)) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Developing_Qt::QA]] | [[Category:Developing_Qt::QA]] | ||
These criteria are the '''minimum standard''' for submitting code to any Qt branch. | |||
These criteria are the '''minimum standard''' for submitting code to any Qt | |||
== Definitions == | == Definitions == | ||
Line 14: | Line 10: | ||
=== Basic Principles === | === Basic Principles === | ||
* Development teams are responsible to ensure all criteria are met before any code is submitted to | * Development teams are responsible to ensure all criteria are met before any code is submitted to. | ||
* These criteria are a minimum set. Teams are encouraged to set their standards higher. | * These criteria are a minimum set. Teams are encouraged to set their standards higher. | ||
* These quality criteria will be applied to all contributors. | * These quality criteria will be applied to all contributors. | ||
* Code needs to compile on all | * Code needs to compile on all platforms in the continuous integration system (no regressions, enforced by blocking continuous integration) | ||
* Has been (API) reviewed (i.e. follows coding conventions) | * Has been (API) reviewed (i.e. follows coding conventions) | ||
* The code can be demonstrated (by means of demo/example/tests) | * The code can be demonstrated (by means of demo/example/tests) | ||
Line 24: | Line 20: | ||
* Well documented (functional specification, class documentation, architectural overview, etc) | * Well documented (functional specification, class documentation, architectural overview, etc) | ||
* Maintenance agreed | * Maintenance agreed | ||
* Test Plan available | * Test Plan available | ||
Bug-fixes (i.e. work done in resolving a defect) are only accepted into the | Bug-fixes (i.e. work done in resolving a defect) are only accepted into the codebase if it meets the following criteria: | ||
* Code needs to compile on all | * Code needs to compile on all platforms in the continuous integration system (no regressions, enforced by blocking continuous integration) | ||
* Has been reviewed (i.e. follows coding conventions) | * Has been reviewed (i.e. follows coding conventions) | ||
* Fix fixes the reported error, and may also be verified by a new test (preferably automated Unit/System test) | * Fix fixes the reported error, and may also be verified by a new test (preferably automated Unit/System test) | ||
* Corresponding documentation is updated as needed (functional specification, class documentation, architectural overview, etc) | * Corresponding documentation is updated as needed (functional specification, class documentation, architectural overview, etc) | ||
=== Compiling === | === Compiling === | ||
Line 40: | Line 36: | ||
!Explanation | !Explanation | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Compiles against recent version of | |Compiles against recent version of the target branch (usually dev) | ||
|Contributor | |Contributor | ||
|The Submission has been integrated with up-to-date Qt | |The Submission has been integrated with up-to-date Qt dev. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Compiles on all Tier 1 platforms | |Compiles on all Tier 1 platforms | ||
Line 58: | Line 54: | ||
|Compliant coding convention | |Compliant coding convention | ||
|Contributor | |Contributor | ||
|For QML see: [http://doc.qt.io/qt- | |For QML see: [http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qml-codingconventions.html qml coding conventions] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|qdoc - zero warnings | |qdoc - zero warnings |
Latest revision as of 06:48, 3 September 2020
These criteria are the minimum standard for submitting code to any Qt branch.
Definitions
- The Submission is any change (addition, modification, or removal) that is submitted to a Qt branch. It may consist of code, comments, documentation, resources, or other content.
- Building The Package refers to compiling and linking the DLLs and executables, including test asset, that resides in a Qt package.
Basic Principles
- Development teams are responsible to ensure all criteria are met before any code is submitted to.
- These criteria are a minimum set. Teams are encouraged to set their standards higher.
- These quality criteria will be applied to all contributors.
- Code needs to compile on all platforms in the continuous integration system (no regressions, enforced by blocking continuous integration)
- Has been (API) reviewed (i.e. follows coding conventions)
- The code can be demonstrated (by means of demo/example/tests)
- Meets a defined minimum threshold of coverage by means of Unit/System tests
- All tests for the new feature pass plus no regressions in existing tests
- Well documented (functional specification, class documentation, architectural overview, etc)
- Maintenance agreed
- Test Plan available
Bug-fixes (i.e. work done in resolving a defect) are only accepted into the codebase if it meets the following criteria:
- Code needs to compile on all platforms in the continuous integration system (no regressions, enforced by blocking continuous integration)
- Has been reviewed (i.e. follows coding conventions)
- Fix fixes the reported error, and may also be verified by a new test (preferably automated Unit/System test)
- Corresponding documentation is updated as needed (functional specification, class documentation, architectural overview, etc)
Compiling
Rule | Responsibility | Explanation |
---|---|---|
Compiles against recent version of the target branch (usually dev) | Contributor | The Submission has been integrated with up-to-date Qt dev. |
Compiles on all Tier 1 platforms | Contributor with QA Engineer | The Package builds on all Tier 1 platforms that are defined for the product. Note that The Package includes not only the DLLs, but also other executables and code, such as the test asset, performance tests and examples. This package is able to be installed on target platforms completely and without user intervention. |
Static/code-quality criteria
Rule | Responsibility | Explanation |
---|---|---|
Compliant coding convention | Contributor | For QML see: qml coding conventions |
qdoc - zero warnings | Community | Documentation for the submission should be complete and relative to the standard for the submission. For instance a major API contribution requires significant documentation whereas a feature will require only documentation related directly to its use. |
Compile - zero warnings on Linux and minimal on remaining Tier 1 platforms | Contributor | Some warnings are more serious than the others, so we obviously care most about the important ones. |
Performance criteria
Rule | Responsibility | Explanation |
---|---|---|
Autotest performance | Contributor with Integration Engineer | The measured unit test performance no worse unless approved if module has been submitted previously |
Performance test coverage | Contributor with QA Engineer | Use-cases are covered by performance tests. |
Streamlined platform interaction | Contributor | Native Qt classes no more than half speed of equivalent native implementation |
Error management
Rule | Responsibility | Explanation |
---|---|---|
P0/1 tasks - zero open | QA Engineer | Monitoring of all teams active tasks against Qt and ensuring consistent error management and progressing of issues. |
Untriaged tasked - zero | Contributor with QA Engineer | All bugs should be triaged and a priority assigned. |
Relative reduction in bug count | Contributor with QA Engineer | Weighted bug total no worse than previous release. |
Future Wishlist (i.e. pointless to implement this until we get the items above under control)
Rule | Responsibility | Explanation |
---|---|---|
Autotests - 80% function coverage, 70% executable | Contributor and QA Engineer | Autotests must, in bare minimum, call most functions in exported public API. Furthermore, line coverage of autotests should exceed 70%, unless there's a genuine technical reason why that cannot be reached. Note that these numbers are not necessarily the definition of good autotest coverage, but our attempt to define what would be the bare acceptable minimum. |
Autotests pass-rate > 90% | Contributor and Integration Engineer | In principle: autotests (in other words, automatically executed unit and module tests) must pass. Regressions are not allowed. |