[GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

Nikos Alexandris nik at nikosalexandris.net
Sun Oct 2 04:30:33 PDT 2016

* Moritz Lennert <mlennert at club.worldonline.be> [2016-10-02 13:24:41 +0200]:

>On 01/10/16 21:25, Blumentrath, Stefan wrote:
>> Sounds fair enough as requirements for new core modules. “Maintainable
>> code” would in praxis mean “the module has undergone a code review by a
>> core developer”?
>> Those requirements would add to Markus requirement of “maturity”, which
>> I would interpret like “the module has been tested in praxis and options
>> and flags are consolidated” (so no major changes are expected /
>> planned)...?
>> I am afraid, it seems only very few of the suggested modules are covered
>> with unit tests. Most of them have a good documentation. No idea about
>> the maintainability of the code...
>> How should we proceed with this topic? Should the named modules (and
>> from my point of view Moritz OBIA modules would be very welcome too)
>They definitely do not meet the enounced criteria, yet. No tests and
>AFAIK, most of them have only been used inhouse by my colleagues.
>So, I'm happy to have them live addons for now.
>This said, I think the requirement of tests is something I would like to
>see discussed a bit more. This is a pretty heavy requirement and many
>current core modules do not have unit tests...

On the long run, GRASS-GIS modules deserve unit tests.  I think we
should invest efforts in this direction.

In this sense, I will try to integrate unit tests for every, hopefully,
useful code I share in form of a module.


>One thing we could think about is activating the toolbox idea a bit more
>and creating a specific OBIA toolbox in addons.
>> Identified candidates could be added to core once they fulfill the
>> requirements above. Would that happen only in minor releases or would
>> that also be possible in point releases?
>Adding modules to core is not an API change, so I don't see why they
>can't be added at any time. But then again, having a series of new
>modules can be sufficient to justify a new minor release ;-)
>> Or is that already too much formality and if someone wishes to see an
>> addon in core that is simply discussed on ML?
>Generally, I would think that discussion on ML is the best way to handle
>grass-dev mailing list
>grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org

Nikos Alexandris | Remote Sensing & Geomatics
GPG Key Fingerprint 6F9D4506F3CA28380974D31A9053534B693C4FB3 

More information about the grass-dev mailing list