Draft AoU on SW platform level on OS integration #1895
Conversation
|
|
|
Need to resolve some issues before it's ready to review. |
Resolves: #1740 Signed-off-by: aschemmel-tech <aschemmel_job@arcor.de>
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-patch-1
branch
from
faa186f to
33e9a83
Compare
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
aschemmel-tech
requested review from
FScholPer,
antonkri,
johannes-esr and
qor-lb
as code owners
| Assumptions on the OS integration - Community Level | ||
| --------------------------------------------------- | ||
|
|
||
| This is the lowest level of integraton, the higher levels will build on this. |
| :id: aou_req__platform__os_integration_assistance | ||
| :reqtype: Non-Functional | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this requirements be ASIL_B?, If used in combination with the highest level yes, but otherwise I would say no
There was a problem hiding this comment.
change these to QM
| :id: aou_req__platform__os_bazel_tooling | ||
| :reqtype: Non-Functional | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't both community and functional platforms be categorized as "QM" for the safety level?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd say the same. Everything up to and including the second tier/level cannot be ASIL but must be QM.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or how does this :safety: need to be read? If the platform shall operate as ASIL-B, are all requirements of :safety: QM and the ones of :safety: ASIL_B needed? Or only the ones of :safety: ASIL_B? I'd have expected the "and"-semantics.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, change community/functional platform reqs to QM, will add additional clarifying AoU for ASIL_B.
opajonk
left a comment
opajonk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First thoughts from my side, and a few typos. Thanks a lot for creating this!
|
|
||
| The OS supplier shall perform safety anomaly reporting. | ||
|
|
||
| Note: This could be fulfilled by listimg per release version all known and user reported bugs which affect the safe OS functions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Note: This could be fulfilled by listimg per release version all known and user reported bugs which affect the safe OS functions. | |
| Note: This could be fulfilled by listing per release version all known and user reported bugs which affect the safe OS functions. |
| :id: aou_req__platform__os_bazel_tooling | ||
| :reqtype: Non-Functional | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd say the same. Everything up to and including the second tier/level cannot be ASIL but must be QM.
| :id: aou_req__platform__os_bazel_tooling | ||
| :reqtype: Non-Functional | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or how does this :safety: need to be read? If the platform shall operate as ASIL-B, are all requirements of :safety: QM and the ones of :safety: ASIL_B needed? Or only the ones of :safety: ASIL_B? I'd have expected the "and"-semantics.
| :safety: ASIL_B | ||
| :status: valid | ||
|
|
||
| The OS supplier shall provide tools for bazel to be able to build, run and test the S-CORE SW platform on the supplier OS. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The OS supplier shall provide tools for bazel to be able to build, run and test the S-CORE SW platform on the supplier OS. | |
| The OS supplier shall provide tools for Bazel to be able to build, run and test the S-CORE SW platform on the supplier OS. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with the "build" part, since software builds of S-CORE are done using Bazel - which is fine. I don't think test and run can be prescribed by S-CORE. OS's often use higher-level build/integration systems like BitBake etc., and running things (at least integration tests "upwards") often needs to be orchestrated in special ways. I don't think it is useful or necessary to require Bazel as frontent for these activities. I can be even impossible: if the building of e.g. the OS image requires certain tools to be used (qualification argumentation), this could create a serious conflict.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this could be a joint effort between the OS provider/supplier and S-CORE, where tests provided by the platform can be integrated into Bazel, if that makes sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Discussed and agreed a formulation change in the process community meeting Oct-21
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-patch-1
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f345e37 to
22a8768
Compare
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-patch-1
branch
from
22a8768 to
42cbea0
Compare
Resolves: #1740