Skip to content

2021 01 21 Eclipse iceoryx developer meetup

Andy Riexinger edited this page Jan 28, 2021 · 1 revision

Eclipse iceoryx developer meetup

Date: 2021/01/21

Time: 17:00 CET

Link: https://eclipse.zoom.us/j/95918504483?pwd=RWM5Y1pkeStKVDZsU09EY1hnclREUT09

Attendees

  • Michael Pöhnl, Apex
  • Dietrich Krönke, Apex
  • Nihal, Bosch
  • Andy Riexinger, Bosch
  • Stephan Schnitzer, Bosch
  • Simon Hoinkis, Apex
  • Christian Eltzschig, Apex
  • Marika Lehmann, Apex
  • Mathias Kraus (Bob), Apex
  • Martin Hintz, Bosch

Agenda

  1. General: Are there other agenda points?, 2 mins
  2. License header: Can we get rid of the data? Update for #483 10 mins
  3. Announcement of FOSDEM talk "Open Source and Safety, oh my?", 5 mins
  4. Status rmw_iceoryx, 10 mins
  5. iceoryx_0.95.0 before the final 1.0.0 release? , 5 min
  6. Code coverage
    1. Target threshold? Aiming 100% possible?
    2. Are integration tests considered in coverage report?
    3. Are timing tests considered in coverage report?
  7. Review of current PR

Minutes

Agenda point 2

  • Proposal from Bob:
  • Have only a copyright for "Eclipse iceoryx contributors", and then a list of contributors in a single place, no date in the header
  • @todo for Andy to check with Bosch legals

Agenda point 5

  • iceoryx_0.95.0 makes sense because of a dry run for the final Eclipse release. Do it when the final API changes are made (#408 +nodes in options)

Agenda point 6

  • Code coverage should be as high as possible (not only line coverage but also branch and MC/DC coverage)
  • There will always be cases that are very hard to test (so maybe sometimes 100% cannot be reached)
  • Test quality is more important than test quantity!
  • codecov results are currently only showing the unit test results (not the integration tests)
  • the timing tests are currently also not visible in the codecov (todo create an issue)

Agenda point 7

  • Currently a lot of PR open -> 16
  • Proposal: Author nominates only 2 reviewers (the ones that are most appropriate). Others should think twice if it is necessary to also review (using code owner files to have automatic nomination? @todo Dietrich follow up this idea)
  • Newcomers are asked to do pair programming or live programming with experienced developers to reduce review effort and finding iterations
Clone this wiki locally