Add badges to readme #1426
Add badges to readme #1426
Conversation
Preparing for Helmholtz Software Award
| @@ -2,6 +2,14 @@ | |||
| [](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/master/LICENSE) | |||
|  | |||
|  | |||
| [](https://github.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/actions/workflows/cibuildwheel.yml) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we do not need this badge as we require working builds for merges. Also the presented name is not understandable for people not involved in the project, I.e. what is “build ci wheels”supposed to mean.
I would just drop it.
| @@ -2,6 +2,14 @@ | |||
| [](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/master/LICENSE) | |||
|  | |||
|  | |||
| [](https://github.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/actions/workflows/cibuildwheel.yml) | |||
| [](https://jupedsim.org/stable) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A successful documentation build is part of our CI. This badge is superfluous imo.
| [](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff) | ||
| [](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/9491) | ||
| [](https://fairsoftwarechecklist.net/v0.2?f=31&a=32113&i=32322&r=133) | ||
| [](https://fair-software.eu) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This badge provides less info than the fairsoftware checklist badge. Feels redundant.
| @@ -2,6 +2,14 @@ | |||
| [](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/master/LICENSE) | |||
|  | |||
|  | |||
| [](https://github.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/actions/workflows/cibuildwheel.yml) | |||
| [](https://jupedsim.org/stable) | |||
| [](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well ok we use ruff but I don’t see any value in that badge.
| [](https://github.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/actions/workflows/cibuildwheel.yml) | ||
| [](https://jupedsim.org/stable) | ||
| [](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff) | ||
| [](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/9491) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would like to see a few changes to the questionnaire on openSSF.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In Section Basics:
Issue 1
When talking about the project website our jupedsim.org presence and the GitHub presence are used interchangeably. I think this is not the way this was intended to. Right now the information is not as easy accessible as I think the questionnaire wants it to be.
Looking at it very strictly we should put it to unmet or update the doc on Jupedsim
Issue 2
We should file a bug with the OSI website to include the LGPL-3.0-or-later SPDX identifier in their website as OSI approved. At least its listed as OSI approved on https://spdx.org/licenses/
Then at least we give something back to them (found a bug) or we learned that it is actually not approved, which would be a surprise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In section Analysis:
We have to set everything to unmet as we do not have any automated static or dynamic code analysis running.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In section Quality:
- The software is buildable only with FLOSS tools.
- We DO have an automated test suite.
- The test are invocable in a standard way for that language
- We DO have a working CI that executes the tests
Regarding the other points, yep we are lacking :/
Preparing for Helmholtz Software Award