Piloting Comp Req Inspection #1947
Conversation
Resolves: process_description/#106
|
|
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
| - | ||
| - | ||
| * - REQ_03_01 | ||
| - For stakeholder requirements: Is the *rationale* correct? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have a generic requirement inspection checklist in S-CORE for all kinds of requirement. Some checks do not fit, for example this one. How are Passed, Remarks, Issue link fields are supposed to be filled in this case?
Or maybe it's better to have separate templates for each requirement type?
| - | ||
| * - REQ_08_01 | ||
| - Is the requirement *verifiable*? | ||
| - Expectation is that at the time of the inspection already tests are created for the requirement. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`PROCESS_gd_req__req_attr_test_covered` shows this. In case the requirement is not mature enough at the time of inspection (i.e. missing test cases), a test expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the job of the test expert once he/she is invited for the review? To mark this Review ID as not passed?
|
|
||
| **Checklist** | ||
|
|
||
| .. list-table:: Component Requirement Inspection Checklist |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this checklist cover the aou_reqs?
| # ******************************************************************************* | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| .. document:: Result Library Requirements Inspection Checklist |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If someone wants change a requirement that was already inspected, how is the checklist invalidated?
Resolves: process_description/#106