Questions from Tooling regarding Process Reqs (after Implementing process 1.1.0)

[AlexanderLanin]

Questions from implementing process_description 1.1.0.

Requirements

• gd_req__req__suspicious talks about setting covered to false. We would rather treat this as a build error during docs-as-code build.
  Update: well no, actually not having a build error would be better from an integration point of view. But we would want build errors for pull requests?!

• gd_req__doc__author can be shown by git history of the file containing the document. Is that sufficient? Note that these authors are not verified in any way (e.g. Max Mustermann).

• gd_req__doc__approver, gd_req__doc__reviewer have become more difficult to implement. Can we remove which tool is supposed to deliver the information? Can we remove the requirement to track the entire document history? (same for gd_req__doc__author)

• gd_req__req__attr_req_cov: any concrete ideas how to do that? As parents are not aware of their children (only back links), we need to e.g. track that separately or inverse the direction. Also such an attribute would not be verified by version checking. In docs-as-code we use a parent_covered attribute.

• gd_req__req__linkage: per previous discussion such a link is mandatory. However not all tool requirements originate from process requirements. e.g. "tool should be fast".

Safety Analysis

• gd_req__saf_structure lacks Platform Dependent Failure Analysis (plat_saf_dfa)?

• gd_req__saf_linkage_check, gd_req__saf_linkage, gd_req__saf_linkage_status_check all refer to the violates attribute? Which needs exactly can be linked? We have architecture elements and architecture views. We do NOT have architecture.

• missing discussed requirement regarding need in violates dictating the minimum safety level in mitigated_by to be fulfilled by at least one of the linked requirements in mitigated_by. @PandaeDo

[PandaeDo]

• gd_req__saf_structure lacks Platform Dependent Failure Analysis (plat_saf_dfa)?
  -> Yes. I will change it in that way that we list the three kinds of safety analysis.

• gd_req__saf_linkage_check, gd_req__saf_linkage, gd_req__saf_linkage_status_check all refer to the violates attribute? Which needs exactly can be linked? We have architecture elements and architecture views. We do NOT have architecture.
  -> The architecture views are needed.

• missing discussed requirement regarding need in violates dictating the minimum safety level in mitigated_by to be fulfilled by at least one of the linked requirements in mitigated_by. @PandaeDo
  -> It's described in gd_req__saf_linkage_safety

[PhilipPartsch]

gd_req__doc__author , gd_req__doc__approver, gd_req__doc__reviewer defines to use the GitHub available solution on reviewer and approver. An archiving strategy of the GitHub information is been needed.

[PhilipPartsch]

to gd_req__req__linkage: We currently work on a decision record. I believe you need the ability to create out of a tool decision record tool requirements.

[AlexanderLanin]

gd_req__req__attr_req_cov: can be accomplished on integration level. While parents are not aware of their children in general, they are aware once integrated.

[AlexanderLanin]

closing, as this seems answered and outdated