Skip to content

docs: update tool requirement status for 7 implemented requirements #620

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

Merged
AlexanderLanin merged 7 commits into from
Jun 26, 2026
Merged

docs: update tool requirement status for 7 implemented requirements #620

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8b32c80
docs: update tool requirement status for 7 implemented requirements
FScholPer Jun 25, 2026
a998bd3
docs: add line-specific source code links for implemented requirements
FScholPer Jun 25, 2026
4de55b0
Merge branch 'main' into 1782396615-update-tool-req-impl-status
FScholPer Jun 25, 2026
fccc649
changed to req-id
FScholPer Jun 26, 2026
a110598
make links versioned
AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026
e2a4577
add missing link
AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026
5842546
reduce/clarify requirement scope
AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026
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
68 changes: 34 additions & 34 deletions docs/internals/requirements/requirements.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -303,12 +303,12 @@ Versioning
.. tool_req:: Mandatory attributes of Generic Documents
:id: tool_req__docs_doc_generic_mandatory
:tags: Documents
:implemented: PARTIAL
:version: 2
:implemented: YES
:version: 3
:satisfies:
gd_req__doc_attributes_manual,
gd_req__change_attr_impact_safety,
gd_req__doc_attr_status,
gd_req__doc_attributes_manual[version==1],
gd_req__change_attr_impact_safety[version==1],
gd_req__doc_attr_status[version==1],
:parent_covered: YES

Enforce that each Generic Document ``doc__*`` has the following attributes:
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -492,10 +492,10 @@ Versioning
.. tool_req:: Enforce validity attribute correctness
:id: tool_req__docs_req_attr_validity_correctness
:tags: Requirements
:implemented: PARTIAL
:version: 1
:implemented: YES
:version: 2
:parent_covered: YES
:satisfies: gd_req__req_validity
:satisfies: gd_req__req_validity[version==1]
:status: valid

Docs-as-Code shall enforce that the ``valid_from`` and ``valid_until`` attributes of stakeholder and feature requirements are correct.
Expand All @@ -506,10 +506,10 @@ Versioning
.. tool_req:: Enforce validity start is before end
:id: tool_req__docs_req_attr_validity_consistency
:tags: Requirements
:implemented: PARTIAL
:version: 1
:implemented: YES
:version: 2
:parent_covered: YES
:satisfies: gd_req__req_validity
:satisfies: gd_req__req_validity[version==1]
:status: valid

Docs-as-Code shall enforce that ``valid_from`` is before ``valid_until`` attribute in stakeholder and feature requirements.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1098,10 +1098,10 @@ Testing

.. tool_req:: Safety Analysis Mandatory Content
:id: tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_content
:implemented: NO
:implemented: YES
:tags: Safety Analysis
:version: 1
:satisfies: gd_req__saf_argument
:version: 2
Comment thread
FScholPer marked this conversation as resolved.
:satisfies: gd_req__saf_argument[version==1]
:parent_covered: NO

Docs-As-Code shall enforce needs of type :need:`tool_req__docs_saf_types` to have a
Expand All @@ -1111,59 +1111,59 @@ Testing

.. tool_req:: Safety Analysis Linkage Violates
:id: tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_violates
:implemented: NO
:implemented: YES

@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

unfortunately this one is PARTIAL only.

Suggested change
:implemented: YES
:implemented: PARTIAL

requirement says:

feat_saf_fmea --> feat_arc_dyn
comp_saf_fmea --> comp_arc_dyn

but metamodel allows:

feat_saf_fmea --> feat_arc_dyn OR feat_arc_sta
comp_saf_fmea --> comp_arc_dyn OR comp_arc_sta

I do not know which one is better. Is the requirement correct or the metamodel?

:tags: Safety Analysis
:version: 1
:version: 2
:satisfies:
gd_req__saf_linkage_check,
gd_req__saf_linkage,
gd_req__sec_linkage_check,
gd_req__saf_linkage_check[version==1],
gd_req__saf_linkage[version==1],
gd_req__sec_linkage_check[version==1],
gd_req__sec_linkage[version==1],
:parent_covered: YES

Docs-As-Code shall enforce that needs of type :need:`tool_req__docs_saf_types` have a
`violates` links to at least one dynamic / static diagram according to the table.


.. table::
:widths: auto

============= ===================
============= ==========================
Link Source Allowed Link Target
============= ===================
============= ==========================
feat_saf_dfa feat_arc_sta
comp_saf_dfa comp_arc_sta
feat_saf_fmea feat_arc_dyn
comp_saf_fmea comp_arc_dyn
============= ===================
feat_saf_fmea feat_arc_dyn, feat_arc_sta
comp_saf_fmea comp_arc_dyn, comp_arc_sta

@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oh... 😆

@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

According to context this should also allow feat_saf_dfa --> feat_arc_dyn. And maybe feat_saf_dfa --> logic_arc_int. This tool requirement does not match the linked process requirement. Not an issue of this PR, just not sure what to do with it.

As it's not this PR, I guess we can merge this PR and I'll open a bug ticket instead.

============= ==========================



.. tool_req:: FMEA: fault id attribute
:id: tool_req__docs_saf_attr_fmea_fault_id
:implemented: NO
:implemented: YES
:tags: Safety Analysis
:version: 1
:satisfies: gd_req__saf_attr_fault_id
:version: 2
:satisfies: gd_req__saf_attr_fault_id[version==1]
:parent_covered: NO

Docs-As-Code shall enforce that needs of type DFA (see
Docs-As-Code shall enforce that needs of type FMEA (see

@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nope. Process requirment clearly states DFA:

Each DFA shall have a failure ID

@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oh god. you are right. same mistake as when writing the requirement and and as when it was originally reviewed. thats almost systematic now. It feels like this is showing DFA. But it is not. It's just the very bottom of the page!

Image

:need:`tool_req__docs_saf_types`) have a `fault_id` attribute.

Allowed values are listed as ID in tables at :need:`gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators`.


.. tool_req:: DFA: failure id attribute
:id: tool_req__docs_saf_attr_dfa_failure_id
:implemented: NO
:implemented: YES
Comment thread
FScholPer marked this conversation as resolved.
:tags: Safety Analysis
:version: 1
:satisfies: gd_req__saf_attr_failure_id
:version: 2
:satisfies: gd_req__saf_attr_failure_id[version==1]
:parent_covered: NO

Docs-As-Code shall enforce that needs of type DFA (see
:need:`tool_req__docs_saf_types`) have a `fault_id` attribute.
:need:`tool_req__docs_saf_types`) have a `failure_id` attribute.

Allowed values are listed as ID in tables at :need:`gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators`.
Note: Allowed values are listed as ID in tables at :need:`gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators`. This is not verified.


.. tool_req:: Failure Effect
Expand Down
Loading