Skip to content

fix: Update tool requirements & update to process 2.0.2 #659

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
MaximilianSoerenPollak wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+37 −12
Open

fix: Update tool requirements & update to process 2.0.2 #659

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ca33157
fix: Update tool requirements & update to process 2.0.2
MaximilianSoerenPollak Jul 23, 2026
f4a8bc6
chore: formatting & linting
MaximilianSoerenPollak Jul 23, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 1 addition & 6 deletions MODULE.bazel
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -70,12 +70,7 @@ http_file(
urls = ["https://github.com/withered-magic/starpls/releases/download/v0.1.21/starpls-linux-amd64"],
)

bazel_dep(name = "score_process", version = "2.0.1")
git_override(
module_name = "score_process",
commit = "292ec1c913a88ed1b724e33fdae658df6dc7b033",
remote = "https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description",
)
bazel_dep(name = "score_process", version = "2.0.2")

# Provide the tools from the devcontainer to Bazel
bazel_dep(name = "score_devcontainer", version = "1.8.0")
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions MODULE.bazel.lock
View file
Open in desktop

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

38 changes: 33 additions & 5 deletions docs/internals/requirements/requirements.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -273,20 +273,48 @@ Versioning
In our enviroment it supports whole numbers e.g. (1,2,10,34)



.. tool_req:: Suspicious: Enforce attribute
:id: tool_req__docs_common_attr_suspicious
:tags: Common Attributes
:implemented: YES
:version: 1
:parent_covered: NO: parent talks about setting covered to false, but we want to issue a build error.
:satisfies: gd_req__req_suspicious[version==2]
:version: 2
:parent_covered: YES: Together with :need:`tool_req__docs_req_testlink_outdated_check` and :need:`tool_req__docs_req_attr_testcov_update`
:satisfies: gd_req__req_suspicious[version==3]
:status: invalid

Docs-as-Code shall check if linked parent needs have different versions, compared to
Docs-as-Code shall check if linked needs have different versions, compared to
the version the need was originally linked to.
Comment on lines +285 to 286

@a-zw a-zw Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Parent gd_req__req_suspicious says:

Based on the requirement versioning it shall be checked if a requirement was updated but not the linked tests. In case an update was detected the attribute complete test coverage shall be set to “No”

I don't see how we cover this at all? This tool_req__docs_common_attr_suspicious is not about tests and it also sounds more general going beyond just tests.

@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I need to re-work this.

What do we do with this one then, I think it makes sense to have, but maybe we don't need to write it down?



.. tool_req:: Test coverage: Detect outdated test linkage
:id: tool_req__docs_req_testlink_outdated_check
:tags: Common Attributes, Testing
:implemented: NO
:version: 1
:parent_covered: YES: Together with tool_req__docs_common_attr_suspicious and tool_req__docs_req_attr_testcov_update
:satisfies: gd_req__req_suspicious[version==3]
:status: invalid

Docs-as-Code shall check, for each requirement of type :need:`tool_req__docs_req_types`
that has one or more linked test needs via the ``testlink`` attribute, whether the
requirement's version has changed since the version that was originally linked by
each test.


.. tool_req:: Test coverage: Set attribute on outdated test linkage
:id: tool_req__docs_req_attr_testcov_update
:tags: Common Attributes, Testing
:implemented: NO
:version: 1
:parent_covered: YES: Together with tool_req__docs_req_testlink_outdated_check tool_req__docs_common_attr_suspicious
:satisfies: gd_req__req_suspicious[version==3]
:status: invalid

Docs-as-Code shall set the ``testcovered`` attribute (see
:need:`tool_req__docs_req_attr_testcov`) of a requirement to ``No`` whenever
:need:`tool_req__docs_req_testlink_outdated_check` detects that a linked test is
outdated with respect to the requirement's version.
Comment on lines +313 to +316

@a-zw a-zw Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't like this requirement. This would be very confusing for users, if the testcovered attribute in HTML is different than in the source rst.

@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see what you mean ye.
This would be quiet confusing, we should find a way that we can force the user to update it.




📚 Documents
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/extensions/score_metamodel/tests/rst/options/test_options_failure_effect.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@
.. feat_saf_fmea:: Empty failure_effect
:id: feat_saf_fmea__test__empty_failure_effect
:fault_id: FMEA_05
:failure_effect:
:failure_effect:
:sufficient: yes
:status: valid
:expect: feat_saf_fmea__test__empty_failure_effect: is missing required attribute: `failure_effect`.
Expand Down
Loading