-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
inspection record need type #661
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?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -933,6 +933,47 @@ needs_types: | |
| fully_verifies: ANY | ||
| partially_verifies: ANY | ||
|
|
||
| # Formal inspection evidence modeled as a first-class artifact. | ||
| # req-Id: tool_req__docs_inspection_record_need | ||
| mod_insp: | ||
| title: Module Inspection Record | ||
| prefix: mod_insp__ | ||
| mandatory_options: | ||
| # req-Id: tool_req__docs_common_attr_safety | ||
| safety: ^(QM|ASIL_B)$ | ||
| # req-Id: tool_req__docs_common_attr_security | ||
| security: ^(YES|NO)$ | ||
| # req-Id: tool_req__docs_common_attr_status | ||
| status: ^(valid|invalid)$ | ||
| # req-Id: tool_req__docs_inspection_record_need | ||
| inspection_type: ^(requirements|architecture|implementation|traceability|safety_analysis|security_analysis|other)$ | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. there are only inspections of type "requirements|architecture|implementation" |
||
| inspection_state: ^(planned|in_review|rework_required|approved)$ | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. state "planned" is the same as having a checklist document in "draft" state, "in_review" would be as long as the PR to fill out the checklist is in draft/open, "rework_required" would mean checklist has a "NO", "approved" means all checkpoints are "YES". Expect this is filled out automatically? |
||
| checklist_ref: ^.*$ | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. in your example this links to a template (gd_temp), but why have this attribute? information can be derived already from "inspection_type" |
||
| reviewers: ^.*$ | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. what importance has this for the verification report (same for moderator and approver below) |
||
| optional_options: | ||
| checklist_type: ^(req|arc|impl|safety|security|custom)$ | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. somehow a duplicate of "inspection_type" |
||
| moderator: ^.*$ | ||
| approver: ^.*$ | ||
| findings_total: ^[0-9]+$ | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I am not sure this can be determined automatically. |
||
| findings_open: ^[0-9]+$ | ||
| pr_link: ^https://github\.com/[^/]+/[^/]+/pull/\d+$ | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Which PR? What is it needed for? |
||
| correction_issue: ^https://github\.com/[^/]+/[^/]+/issues/\d+$ | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. is it really needed here? can be seen in checklist (linked in below "evidence") |
||
| inspection_date: ^[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}$ | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. what do you use this for? I do not think you can judge from the date if it is still valid. |
||
| mandatory_links: | ||
| # req-Id: tool_req__docs_inspection_record_need | ||
| belongs_to: mod | ||
| inspects: ANY | ||
| optional_links: | ||
| # req-Id: tool_req__docs_inspection_record_need | ||
| contains: ANY | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. "contains" makes no sense in inspection record (at least if it is the same usage as in verification report). Or do you want to pack inspection records in inspection records? |
||
| evidence: ANY | ||
| approved_by: role | ||
| supported_by: role | ||
| tags: | ||
| - inspection | ||
| - verification_evidence | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. it is not an evidence? |
||
| parts: 3 | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| # https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/permalink.html?id=gd_temp__change_decision_record | ||
| dec_rec: | ||
|
|
@@ -1068,6 +1109,14 @@ needs_extra_links: | |
| incoming: partially_verified_by | ||
| outgoing: partially_verifies | ||
|
|
||
| evidence: | ||
| incoming: evidence_for | ||
| outgoing: evidence | ||
|
|
||
| inspects: | ||
| incoming: inspected_by | ||
| outgoing: inspects | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ############################################################## | ||
| # Graph Checks | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ | ||
| .. | ||
| # ******************************************************************************* | ||
| # Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation | ||
| # | ||
| # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional | ||
| # information regarding copyright ownership. | ||
| # | ||
| # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the | ||
| # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at | ||
| # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||
| # | ||
| # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 | ||
| # ******************************************************************************* | ||
| #CHECK: check_options | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| .. Base architecture and requirement objects used by inspection record tests | ||
|
|
||
| .. feat:: Inspection Feature | ||
| :id: feat__inspection_feature | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B | ||
| :status: valid | ||
|
|
||
| .. comp:: Inspection Component | ||
| :id: comp__inspection_component | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B | ||
| :status: valid | ||
| :belongs_to: feat__inspection_feature | ||
|
|
||
| .. mod:: Inspection Module | ||
| :id: mod__inspection_module | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B | ||
| :status: valid | ||
| :includes: comp__inspection_component | ||
|
|
||
| .. comp_req:: Inspection Requirement | ||
| :id: comp_req__inspection__sample | ||
| :reqtype: Functional | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B | ||
| :status: valid | ||
|
|
||
| Requirement text for inspection record tests. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| .. Valid machine-readable inspection record need | ||
| #EXPECT-NOT[+2]: does not follow pattern | ||
|
|
||
| .. mod_insp:: Inspection Record Valid | ||
| :id: mod_insp__inspection__valid | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :status: valid | ||
| :inspection_type: requirements | ||
| :inspection_state: approved | ||
| :checklist_ref: gd_chklst__req_inspection | ||
| :reviewers: reviewer_a,reviewer_b | ||
| :checklist_type: req | ||
| :findings_total: 1 | ||
| :findings_open: 0 | ||
| :inspection_date: 2026-06-24 | ||
| :belongs_to: mod__inspection_module | ||
| :inspects: comp_req__inspection__sample | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| .. Invalid inspection_state value in module inspection record | ||
| #EXPECT[+2]: mod_insp__inspection__bad_state.inspection_state (approved_late): does not follow pattern | ||
|
|
||
| .. mod_insp:: Inspection Record Invalid State | ||
| :id: mod_insp__inspection__bad_state | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :status: invalid | ||
| :inspection_type: architecture | ||
| :inspection_state: approved_late | ||
| :checklist_ref: gd_chklst__arch_inspection_checklist | ||
| :reviewers: reviewer_a | ||
| :belongs_to: mod__inspection_module | ||
| :inspects: comp_req__inspection__sample |
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.
I do not fully understand how this will be used. My assumption based on the example in eclipse-score/persistency#330 is that it is a part of the verification report but has one instance per each inspection evidence. E.g. in baselibs this would be about ten records for requirements inspections (one per avery component). Comments given based on this assumption.