Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add badges to readme #1426

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Add badges to readme #1426

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,6 +2,14 @@
[![GitHub license](https://img.shields.io/badge/license-LGPL-blue.svg)](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/master/LICENSE)
![PyPI - Python Version](https://img.shields.io/pypi/pyversions/jupedsim)
![PyPI - Version](https://img.shields.io/pypi/v/jupedsim)
[![Build CI wheels](https://github.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/actions/workflows/cibuildwheel.yml/badge.svg)](https://github.com/PedestrianDynamics/jupedsim/actions/workflows/cibuildwheel.yml)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

[![Documentation Status](https://img.shields.io/badge/docs-up--to--date-brightgreen)](https://jupedsim.org/stable)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A successful documentation build is part of our CI. This badge is superfluous imo.

[![Ruff](https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/astral-sh/ruff/main/assets/badge/v2.json)](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well ok we use ruff but I don’t see any value in that badge.

[![OpenSSF Best Practices](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/9491/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/9491)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would like to see a few changes to the questionnaire on openSSF.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In section Analysis:

We have to set everything to unmet as we do not have any automated static or dynamic code analysis running.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 :/

[![FAIR checklist badge](https://fairsoftwarechecklist.net/badge.svg)](https://fairsoftwarechecklist.net/v0.2?f=31&a=32113&i=32322&r=133)
[![fair-software.eu](https://img.shields.io/badge/fair--software.eu-%E2%97%8F%20%20%E2%97%8F%20%20%E2%97%8F%20%20%E2%97%8F%20%20%E2%97%8F-green)](https://fair-software.eu)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This badge provides less info than the fairsoftware checklist badge. Feels redundant.




# Jülich Pedestrian Simulator - JuPedSim

Expand Down