Skip to content

feat: add optional 'maturity' attribute to comp need type - #838

Open
antonkri wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
feature/comp-maturity-attribute
Open

feat: add optional 'maturity' attribute to comp need type#838
antonkri wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
feature/comp-maturity-attribute

Conversation

@antonkri

@antonkri antonkri commented Sep 17, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adds an optional 'maturity' option (preview/experimental/release) to the 'comp' need type in metamodel.yaml, plus regression tests covering valid and invalid values.

Decision Record: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/blob/main/docs/design_decisions/DR-003-strat.md

📌 Description

🚨 Impact Analysis

  • This change does not violate any tool requirements and is covered by existing tool requirements
  • This change does not violate any design decisions
  • Otherwise I have created a ticket for new tool qualification

✅ Checklist

  • Added/updated documentation for new or changed features
  • Added/updated tests to cover the changes
  • Followed project coding standards and guidelines

@antonkri
feat: add optional 'maturity' attribute to comp need type
4770a65 
Adds an optional 'maturity' option (preview/experimental/release) to
the 'comp' need type in metamodel.yaml, plus regression tests
covering valid and invalid values.
@antonkri
test: update expected needs.json fixtures for new 'maturity' field
d563fc5 
The optional 'maturity' attribute added to the 'comp' need type
introduces a new field in the generated sphinx-needs schema. Update
the checked-in golden needs.json/needs_local.json files accordingly.
@antonkri
antonkri force-pushed the feature/comp-maturity-attribute branch from f9ca91a to d563fc5 Compare September 18, 2026 07:04
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Documentation preview for this pull request is available at:
pr-838: https://eclipse-score.github.io/docs-as-code/pr-838/

@antonkri

antonkri commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@MaximilianSoerenPollak , @AlexanderLanin please review/approve

@MaximilianSoerenPollak

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@MaximilianSoerenPollak , @AlexanderLanin please review/approve

This change is only for components is this correct?
Out of the DR I can't see that, but then again I wasn't in the meetings where this was discussed so I might miss context.

If it's only for components then it's fine by me.

@antonkri

antonkri commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@MaximilianSoerenPollak , @AlexanderLanin please review/approve

This change is only for components is this correct? Out of the DR I can't see that, but then again I wasn't in the meetings where this was discussed so I might miss context.

If it's only for components then it's fine by me.

@MaximilianSoerenPollak , you are right, should be per mod:. Will adapt it asap.

@AlexanderLanin

AlexanderLanin commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

what do we do for traceability? Tool requirement without parent for now?

@MaximilianSoerenPollak

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

what do we do for traceability? Tool requirement without parent for now?

That would make sense probably.

@antonkri

antonkri commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

what do we do for traceability? Tool requirement without parent for now?

That would make sense probably.

@MaximilianSoerenPollak done, now the maturity is specified per module. Do I need to specify any requirements? If yes, where?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin Awaiting requested review from AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin is a code owner
@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak Awaiting requested review from MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak is a code owner
@dcalavrezo-qorix dcalavrezo-qorix Awaiting requested review from dcalavrezo-qorix dcalavrezo-qorix is a code owner
@nradakovic nradakovic Awaiting requested review from nradakovic nradakovic is a code owner
@a-zw a-zw Awaiting requested review from a-zw a-zw is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

INF - Infrastructure Community
Status: No status

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@antonkri @MaximilianSoerenPollak @AlexanderLanin