fix: Restore accidentally deleted requirements#730
Conversation
The intention was to delete requirements related to unit tests. Attributes like "belongs_to" are also relevant on a higher-levels though.
a-zw
requested review from
PandaeDo,
RolandJentschETAS,
aschemmel-tech,
masc2023 and
pahmann
as code owners
| - SW Unit | ||
| - SW Unit Interface |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm sure the first two requirements should be restored, but I'm not sure about the other two since these seem to be quite specifically about units.
On the other hand, docs-as-code currently implements relations like "mod_view_sta includes comp".
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
| :complies: std_req__iso26262__support_6421[version==1], std_req__iso26262__support_6425[version==1] | ||
| :satisfies: wf__sw_detailed_design[version==1] | ||
|
|
||
| Each diagram shall be automatically linked (inverse direction) to the corresponding component id via the "belongs by" linkage. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
belongs by sounds a bit strange to me.
Options: contains, owns, has.
Eventually also "consists of" may be an option.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is according meta model, thus fine, should not be changed
|
|
||
| .. _detailed_design_linkage: | ||
|
|
||
| Diagram Linkage |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Compared it with https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html
seems ok, but the word Diagram is somehow misleading, should that not be called Detailed Design?
masc2023
left a comment
masc2023
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will be discussed here finally https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/407#discussioncomment-17473697
| :complies: std_req__iso26262__support_6421[version==1], std_req__iso26262__support_6425[version==1] | ||
| :satisfies: wf__sw_detailed_design[version==1] | ||
|
|
||
| Each diagram shall be linked to the corresponding component id via the attribute belongs_to. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In detail design / implementation exists no sphinx elements anymore. There this requirement should be moved into the architecture process requirements.
| :complies: std_req__iso26262__support_6421[version==1], std_req__iso26262__support_6425[version==1] | ||
| :satisfies: wf__sw_detailed_design[version==1] | ||
|
|
||
| Each diagram shall be automatically linked (inverse direction) to the corresponding |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be removes. See above.
| :complies: std_req__iso26262__support_6421[version==1], std_req__iso26262__support_6425[version==1] | ||
| :satisfies: wf__sw_detailed_design[version==1] | ||
|
|
||
| Each diagram shall be linked to the corresponding |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This requirement can be removed. We have no sphinx needs in implementation / detail design anymore. Existing (optional) implementation diagrams (plantuml or drawio) are linked by path / filename to the unit. They are located in the docs folder of the component. The units are mentioned in the diagram as names of "boxes". There is no automation needed.
|
|
||
| Each diagram shall be linked to the corresponding component id via the attribute belongs_to. | ||
|
|
||
| .. gd_req:: Diagram Linkage Component ID |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See above. Shall be moved to architecture process requirements.
4 participants
The intention was to delete requirements related to unit tests. Attributes like "belongs_to" are also relevant on a higher-levels though.