selfpatch/ros2_medkit - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

ros2_medkit - diagnostics gateway for ROS 2 robots. Faults, live data, operations, scripts, locking, triggers, and OTA updates via REST API. No SSH, no custom tooling.

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 65/100

External PR Merge Rate: 63%

Response Time: 7h

First Timer Success: 50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is selfpatch/ros2_medkit welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

selfpatch/ros2_medkit has a recorded first-timer success rate of 50.0%. Repositories ranked A typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

Maintainers in selfpatch/ros2_medkit respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 7.5 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 65.5 C-Rank™ score (A Tier) represent?

The C-Rank™ system evaluates GitHub projects on a 0–100 scale using real data: PR merge rates, review turnaround time, active maintainer presence, and first-time contributor success. A score of 65.5 places selfpatch/ros2_medkit in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for selfpatch/ros2_medkit?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for selfpatch/ros2_medkit is 62.9%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in selfpatch/ros2_medkit?

selfpatch/ros2_medkit currently has 5 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

selfpatch
selfpatch/ros2_medkitA•Welcoming273
GitHub
Back to Explorer
selfpatch

selfpatch/ros2_medkit

273
Active (30d)A•Welcoming(65/100)C++

ros2_medkit - diagnostics gateway for ROS 2 robots. Faults, live data, operations, scripts, locking, triggers, and OTA updates via REST API. No SSH, no custom tooling.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Active Open-Source Maintainer

Warmth Score
7.8/10
Patience Score
8.2/10
Nitpick Rate
20%

Active maintainer team in selfpatch/ros2_medkit welcoming community pull requests and bug fixes.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • •Ensure code complies with repository style conventions
  • •Keep PRs focused and well-documented

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • •Do not submit unlinked PRs without context
  • •Do not break existing automated test suites
Response Velocity
7 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.

Merge Efficiency
62.9%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
50.0%
Accepts new contributor PRs

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
8 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
62.9%
Merge Gauge
50.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe65/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.

GetMerged C-Rank badge for selfpatch/ros2_medkit
[![GetMerged C-Rank](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/api/badge/selfpatch/ros2_medkit)](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/selfpatch/ros2_medkit?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Context PR #274 added per-entity debounce thresholds. When multiple entities with different resolved configs report the same fault_code, the last reporter's config determines the status transition. This is documented behavior but can be a production footgun. Example Motor (confirmation_threshold=-5) reports OVERHEAT -> counter=-1, PREFAILED. Lidar (confirmation_threshold=-1) reports same OVERHEAT -> counter=-2, lidar config applied, -2<=-1 -> CONFIRMED. Motor's debounce policy was bypassed because lidar came in with a more lenient config. Proposed solution Add RCLCPP_WARN_ONCE (or RCLCPP_WARN_THROTTLE) when a fault_code receives events with different resolved DebounceConfig values. This requires tracking per-fault the last-used config (e.g., a std::unordered_map<std::string, DebounceConfig> in FaultManagerNode). Alternative: validate at YAML load time whether configured prefixes could cause overlapping matches for common fault_code patterns. Why not done in #274 Requires per-fault stat

📅 Opened Mar 15, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

Summary The global DELETE /faults?status= endpoint lacks a test that verifies the status filter actually works (e.g. inject a confirmed fault → DELETE with ?status=pending → verify the confirmed fault still exists). Current integration tests only check that 204 is returned, because demo nodes continuously re-report faults making absence checks flaky. Proposed solution (optional) Add a C++ unit test (~30-50 lines) with a mock fault manager: Mock list_faults() to return known faults with different statuses Call handle_clear_all_faults_global with ?status=pending Verify clear_fault() was only called on pending faults Existing patterns in test_fault_manager.cpp can be reused — no new test infrastructure needed. Additional context (optional) Raised during PR #228 review by @bburda.

📅 Opened Feb 19, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

Summary The ConfigHandlers class has no unit test file. It handles SOVD configuration CRUD operations (reading/writing ROS 2 parameters via HTTP) and has 5 methods. Methods to test (5): handle_list_configurations - lists available parameter sets for an entity handle_get_configuration - gets current values of a specific configuration set handle_set_configuration - sets parameter values handle_delete_configuration - resets a specific configuration to defaults handle_delete_all_configurations - resets all configurations for an entity Proposed solution (optional) Create test/test_config_handlers.cpp: #include <gtest/gtest.h> #include <nlohmann/json.hpp> #include "ros2_medkit_gateway/http/handlers/config_handlers.hpp" class ConfigHandlersTest : public ::testing::Test {}; // Test: invalid entity ID returns 400 TEST_F(ConfigHandlersTest, ListConfigsInvalidEntityReturns400) { /* ... */ } // Test: non-existent entity returns 404 TEST_F(ConfigHandlersTest, GetConfigUnknownEntityReturns404)

📅 Opened Feb 13, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

Summary Several core classes in the gateway lack Doxygen documentation (@brief, @param, @return comments). This makes it harder for new contributors to understand the architecture without reading the full implementation. Priority classes that need documentation: GatewayNode (include/ros2_medkit_gateway/gateway_node.hpp) — the main ROS 2 node orchestrating all subsystems DataAccessManager (include/ros2_medkit_gateway/data_access_manager.hpp) — manages topic data access and sampling ConfigurationManager (include/ros2_medkit_gateway/configuration_manager.hpp) — handles ROS 2 parameter configuration via SOVD API OperationManager (include/ros2_medkit_gateway/operation_manager.hpp) — manages service/action operations Proposed solution (optional) Add Doxygen-style documentation to each class and its public methods. Example: /** * @brief Main ROS 2 node that orchestrates the SOVD-compatible HTTP gateway. * * GatewayNode initializes and coordinates all subsystems: discovery, REST

📅 Opened Feb 13, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 80/100Contribute

Summary Implement GET /{entity-path}/data-groups endpoint to return logical groupings of data items. Data groups are custom collections defined in the capability description or derived from namespace structure. They allow clients to organize and filter data resources by logical purpose (e.g., "motion", "environment"). Data groups differ from data categories: categories are fixed semantic types (identData, currentData, storedData, sysInfo), while groups are user-defined logical collections that can span multiple categories. Currently the route is registered in rest_server.cpp but returns 501 Not Implemented. (ISO 17978-3, §7.9) Proposed solution GET /api/v1/{entity-path}/data-groups List all data groups defined for an entity. Applies to entity types: Components, Apps (SOVDServer aggregation level excluded per spec) Path parameters: Parameter Type Required Description {entity-path} URL segment Yes e.g., components/engine_ecu or apps/temp_sensor Query parameters: Parameter

📅 Opened Jan 24, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute
Looking for more C++ beginner tasks?Explore C++ GFI

Contributor Community Vibe Feedback

Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.

Have you contributed to this repo?

Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.

3 ratings required
Maintainer helpfulness
Review speed
Beginner friendliness

Contributor Compatibility & Review Speed Analysis for selfpatch/ros2_medkit

When evaluating whether to contribute to selfpatch/ros2_medkit, response velocity and maintainer engagement are crucial. GetMerged continuously tracks pull request trajectories, first-comment latency, and code review rounds to help developers avoid submitting pull requests to backlogged repositories.

Currently, maintainers of selfpatch/ros2_medkit acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 7 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 62.9% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to selfpatch/ros2_medkit

01

Is selfpatch/ros2_medkit welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

selfpatch/ros2_medkit has a recorded first-timer success rate of 50.0%. Repositories ranked Welcoming typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

02

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

The initial maintainer response time averages ~7 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 65.5 C-Rank™ score represent?

The C-Rank™ index scores repositories on a 0 to 100 scale using an objective formula: external PR merge rates, initial response speed, active maintainer count, and first-time contributor retention. A score of 65.5 places selfpatch/ros2_medkit in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for selfpatch/ros2_medkit?

The external pull request merge rate is 62.9%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.

05

Are there beginner Good First Issues open in selfpatch/ros2_medkit?

Yes, selfpatch/ros2_medkit currently has 5 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for selfpatch/ros2_medkit are automatically retrieved via the public GitHub API and recalculated daily. Insider pull requests submitted by repository owners or organization members are excluded from merge rate calculations to preserve objective external contributor statistics.