-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
Piloting Comp Req Inspection #1947
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.
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If it is not stakeholder requirements: just write "not applicable" in the "Passed" and "no stakeholder requirement(s)" in "Remarks" - may add this to guideline
| - | ||
| * - 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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the job of the test expert once he/she is invited for the review? To mark this Review ID as not passed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah, I see, will improve the guidance
|
|
||
| **Checklist** | ||
|
|
||
| .. list-table:: Component Requirement Inspection Checklist |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this checklist cover the aou_reqs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are right, I should include the AoU here.
| # ******************************************************************************* | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| .. document:: Result Library Requirements Inspection Checklist |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If someone wants change a requirement that was already inspected, how is the checklist invalidated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The idea is (as described in https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_review_concept.html#gd_req__general_status_reset_check) to set the status of the requirement to "valid(inspected)" and reset to "valid" - this is seen in the requirements list at the end of the checklist. As this status is currently not implemented, I simulate this with an "inspected" tag.
Resolves: process_description/#106
Resolves: process_description/#106