Quality guide: ensuring code quality
Table of Contents
This page gives guidance about how to improve the software quality of ROS 2 packages, focusing on more specific areas than the Quality Practices section of the Developer Guide.
The sections below intend to address ROS 2 core, application and ecosystem packages and the core client libraries, C++ and Python. The solutions presented are motivated by design and implementation considerations to improve quality attributes like “Reliability”, “Security”, “Maintainability”, “Determinism”, etc. which relate to non-functional requirements.
Static code analysis as part of the ament package build
Context:
You have developed your C++ production code.
You have created a ROS 2 package with build support with
ament
.
Problem:
Library level static code analysis is not run as part of the package build procedure.
Library level static code analysis needs to be executed manually.
Risk of forgetting to execute library level static code analysis before building a new package version.
Solution:
Use the integration capabilities of
ament
to execute static code analysis as part of the package build procedure.
Implementation:
Insert into the packages
CMakeLists.txt
file.
...
if(BUILD_TESTING)
find_package(ament_lint_auto REQUIRED)
ament_lint_auto_find_test_dependencies()
...
endif()
...
Insert the
ament_lint
test dependencies into the packagespackage.xml
file.
...
<package format="2">
...
<test_depend>ament_lint_auto</test_depend>
<test_depend>ament_lint_common</test_depend>
...
</package>
Examples:
rclcpp
:rclcpp_lifecycle
:
Resulting context:
The static code analysis tools supported by
ament
are run as part of the package build.Static code analysis tools not supported by
ament
need to be executed separately.
Static Thread Safety Analysis via Code Annotation
Context:
You are developing/debugging your multithreaded C++ production code
You access data from multiple threads in C++ code
Problem:
Data races and deadlocks can lead to critical bugs.
Solution:
Utilize Clang’s static Thread Safety Analysis by annotating threaded code
Context For Implementation:
To enable Thread Safety Analysis, code must be annotated to let the compiler know more about the semantics of the code. These annotations are Clang-specific attributes - e.g. __attribute__(capability()))
. Instead of using those attributes directly, ROS 2 provides preprocessor macros that are erased when using other compilers.
These macros can be found in rcpputils/thread_safety_annotations.h
- The Thread Safety Analysis documentation states
Thread safety analysis can be used with any threading library, but it does require that the threading API be wrapped in classes and methods which have the appropriate annotations
We have decided that we want ROS 2 developers to be able to use std::
threading primitives directly for their development. We do not want to provide our own wrapped types as is suggested above.
There are three C++ standard libraries to be aware of
* The GNU standard library libstdc++
- default on Linux, explicitly via the compiler option -stdlib=libstdc++
* The LLVM standard library libc++
(also called libcxx
) - default on macOS, explicitly set by the compiler option -stdlib=libc++
* The Windows C++ Standard Library - not relevant to this use case
libcxx
annotates its std::mutex
and std::lock_guard
implementations for Thread Safety Analysis. When using GNU libstdc++
, those annotations are not present, so Thread Safety Analysis cannot be used on non-wrapped std::
types.
Therefore, to use Thread Safety Analysis directly with std::
types, we must use libcxx
Implementation:
The code migration suggestions here are by no means complete - when writing (or annotating existing) threaded code, you are encouraged to utilize as many of the annotations as is logical for your use case. However, this step-by-step is a great place to start!
Enabling Analysis for Package/Target
When the C++ compiler is Clang, enable the
-Wthread-safety
flag. Example below for CMake-based projectsif(CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID MATCHES "Clang") add_compile_options(-Wthread-safety) # for your whole package target_compile_options(${MY_TARGET} PUBLIC -Wthread-safety) # for a single library or executable endif()
Annotating Code
Step 1 - Annotate data members
Find anywhere that
std::mutex
is used to protect some member dataAdd the
RCPPUTILS_TSA_GUARDED_BY(mutex_name)
annotation to the data that is protected by the mutex
class Foo { public: void incr(int amount) { std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mutex_); bar += amount; } void get() const { return bar; } private: mutable std::mutex mutex_; int bar RCPPUTILS_TSA_GUARDED_BY(mutex_) = 0; };
Step 2 - Fix Warnings
In the above example -
Foo::get
will produce a compiler warning! To fix it, lock before returning bar
void get() const { std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mutex_); return bar; }
Step 3 - (Optional but Recommended) Refactor Existing Code to Private-Mutex Pattern
A recommended pattern in threaded C++ code is to always keep your
mutex
as aprivate:
member of the data structure. This makes data safety the concern of the containing structure, offloading that responsibility from users of the structure and minimizing the surface area of affected code.Making your locks private may require rethinking the interfaces to your data. This is a great exercise - here are a few things to consider
You may want to provide specialized interfaces for performing analysis that requires complex locking logic, e.g. counting members in a filtered set of a mutex-guarded map structure, instead of actually returning the underlying structure to consumers
Consider copying to avoid blocking, where the amount of data is small. This can let other threads get on with accessing the shared data, which can potentially lead to better overall performance.
Step 4 - (Optional) Enable Negative Capability Analysis
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.html#negative-capabilities
Negative Capability Analysis lets you specify “this lock must not be held when calling this function”. It can reveal potential deadlock cases that other annotations cannot.
Where you specified
-Wthread-safety
, add the additional flag-Wthread-safety-negative
On any function that acquires a lock, use the
RCPPUTILS_TSA_REQUIRES(!mutex)
pattern
How to run the analysis
The ROS CI build farm runs a nightly job with
libcxx
, which will surface any issues in the ROS 2 core stack by being marked “Unstable” when Thread Safety Analysis raises warningsFor local runs, you have the following options, all equivalent
Use the colcon clang-libcxx mixin
colcon build --mixin clang-libcxx
You may only use this if you have configured mixins for your colcon installation
Passing compiler to CMake
colcon build --cmake-args -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=clang -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=clang++ -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS='-stdlib=libc++ -D_LIBCPP_ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY_ANNOTATIONS' -DFORCE_BUILD_VENDOR_PKG=ON --no-warn-unused-cli
Overriding system compiler
CC=clang CXX=clang++ colcon build --cmake-args -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS='-stdlib=libc++ -D_LIBCPP_ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY_ANNOTATIONS' -DFORCE_BUILD_VENDOR_PKG=ON --no-warn-unused-cli
Resulting Context:
Potential deadlocks and race conditions will be surfaced at compile time, when using Clang and
libcxx
Dynamic analysis (data races & deadlocks)
Context:
You are developing/debugging your multithreaded C++ production code.
You use pthreads or C++11 threading + llvm libc++ (in case of ThreadSanitizer).
You do not use Libc/libstdc++ static linking (in case of ThreadSanitizer).
You do not build non-position-independent executables (in case of ThreadSanitizer).
Problem:
Data races and deadlocks can lead to critical bugs.
Data races and deadlocks cannot be detected using static analysis (reason: limitation of static analysis).
Data races and deadlocks must not show up during development debugging / testing (reason: usually not all possible control paths through production code exercised).
Solution:
Use a dynamic analysis tool which focuses on finding data races and deadlocks (here clang ThreadSanitizer).
Implementation:
Compile and link the production code with clang using the option
-fsanitize=thread
(this instruments the production code).In case different production code shall be executed during analysis consider conditional compilation e.g. ThreadSanitizers _has_feature(thread_sanitizer).
In case some code shall not be instrumented consider ThreadSanitizers _/*attribute*/_((no_sanitize(“thread”))).
In case some files shall not be instrumented consider file or function-level exclusion ThreadSanitizers blacklisting, more specific: ThreadSanitizers Sanitizer Special Case List or with ThreadSanitizers no_sanitize(“thread”) and use the option
--fsanitize-blacklist
.
Resulting context:
Higher chance to find data races and deadlocks in production code before deploying it.
Analysis result may lack reliability, tool in beta phase stage (in case of ThreadSanitizer).
Overhead due to production code instrumentation (maintenance of separate branches for instrumented/not instrumented production code, etc.).
Instrumented code needs more memory per thread (in case of ThreadSanitizer).
Instrumented code maps a lot virtual address space (in case of ThreadSanitizer).