Checklist and verification needs type draft#612
Conversation
License Check Results🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command: bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //src:license-checkStatus: Click to expand output |
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
66a9c2d to
7464cbd
Compare
The :content: option cannot be used directly in sphinx-needs directives as it's a built-in core field. Instead, the requirement text should be provided as the block body of the directive. This fixes the 'Unknown option content' error in the file-based tests.
AlexanderLanin
left a comment
AlexanderLanin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI-assisted review (Claude):
Severity: Critical: 0, Important: 2, Suggestions: 1
Solid draft. The two new need types (mod_ver_report, mod_insp) follow existing metamodel conventions (safety/security/status regexes, parts: 3, all extra-links defined), the :satisfies: targets resolve to real process_description reqs, and file_based_tests_options + unit_tests pass locally. Nothing blocks correctness.
- Important — the two new tool_reqs omit
[version==1]in:satisfies:used everywhere else in the file (inline). - Important — the added
test_metamodel_schema_json_is_validtests an unrelated, unchanged file and replaced the test that actually covered the new types (inline). - Suggestion — several mandatory options use
^.*$(no real validation);reviewersas free text loses traceability (inline).
Still open from existing threads: process-side review of the example values (@AlexanderLanin) and @MaximilianSoerenPollak's question about auto-filling the coverage fields from metrics.json.
| inspection_type: ^(requirements|architecture|implementation|traceability|safety_analysis|security_analysis|other)$ | ||
| inspection_state: ^(planned|in_review|rework_required|approved)$ | ||
| checklist_ref: ^.*$ | ||
| reviewers: ^.*$ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI-assisted review (Claude): reviewers (and checklist_ref on line 979, verification_method on 943) are mandatory options with pattern ^.*$, which matches anything including the empty string — so "mandatory" only enforces presence, not a usable value. reviewers is also a free-text CSV, so it can't be traced; the metamodel already models people via role links (approved_by/supported_by). Consider tighter patterns and/or modeling reviewers as links rather than a string. Draft-level note — fine to defer, but worth deciding before this leaves draft.
|
We probably should wait with this as well until we know what trlcs is actually used for. Otherwise we put effort into something that is implemented by that, that we won't implement |
the goal is to provide at-least an alternative of how that would look like in docs-as-code. to avoid the "something vs nothing" discussion, where the "winner" is pre-determined. |
That makes a lot of sense. With that argument I would agre, let's move forward with how we should do this. |
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My impression is that the inspection checklist is not following the current process and is also hard to use. But also I understand this is supposed to be a Proof of Concept / Piloting change, so fine if you want to try out.
|
@masc2023 @PandaeDo @aschemmel-tech did you see Persistency #330 aka Preview? @FScholPer already did a try-run there. |
Thank you, not yet, put it also on the agenda for the next process community meeting, https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/407#discussioncomment-17714115 |
Co-authored-by: Alexander Lanin <Alexander.Lanin@etas.com> Signed-off-by: Frank Scholter Peres(MBTI) <145544737+FScholPer@users.noreply.github.com>
7 participants
Relates to #611
📌 Description
Implements two new needs for verification report templates and checklists
🚨 Impact Analysis
✅ Checklist
Frank Scholter Peres frank.scholter_peres@mercedes-benz.com, Mercedes-Benz Tech Innovation GmbH
Provider Information