feat: Quality pack targets

[GabrielPinheiro7891]

Provide Bazel targets: unit tests, component tests, code coverage.
Added documentation

[github-actions]

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: eba4fc8b-26ca-4866-8d86-bbe1963d2d94
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
WARNING: For repository 'platforms', the root module requires module version platforms@1.0.0, but got platforms@1.1.0 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'score_platform', the root module requires module version score_platform@0.7.1, but got score_platform@0.7.2 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'rules_oci', the root module requires module version rules_oci@2.2.7, but got rules_oci@2.3.0 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 3 packages loaded
WARNING: Target pattern parsing failed.
ERROR: Skipping '//:license-check': no such target '//:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package '' defined by /home/runner/work/time/time/BUILD
ERROR: no such target '//:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package '' defined by /home/runner/work/time/time/BUILD
INFO: Elapsed time: 14.945s
INFO: 0 processes.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
ERROR: Build failed. Not running target

[github-actions]

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

[ryan-steel]

This doesn't match up with the score process module_template.

I've started the component requirements work for the other components following the guidelines, see #151 and #149. I think we should have this structure across all the components. The actual build of the docs themselves won't work until the update to docs-as-code 6.0 is merged in #148 (updating to use docs_bundles so that we can have docs alongside source).

Please update to match the template.

[GabrielPinheiro7891]

I pushed the commit Update to match module_template , to match the template. However, like you said, until docs-as-code 6.0 isn't merged this will not work as we get:

"broken_references": [
{
"testcase": "testcase__SystemClockTest__NowReturnsTimepointSuitableForDurationArithmetic_nckqh",
"missing_need": "comp_req__system_time__snapshot"
},
{
"testcase": "testcase__SteadyClockTest__NowReturnsTimepointSuitableForDurationArithmetic_dhwjw",
"missing_need": "comp_req__steady_time__snapshot"
},
{
"testcase": "testcase__HighResSteadyClockTest__NowReturnsTimepointSuitableForDurationArithmetic_ogazc",
"missing_need": "comp_req__high_res_steady_time__snapshot"
},
{
"testcase": "testcase__VehicleClockTest__NowReturnsSynchronizedStatusAndTimepoint_xggob",
"missing_need": "comp_req__vehicle_time__snapshot"
},
{
"testcase": "testcase__VehicleClockTest__InitForwardsToBackend_vsaqs",
"missing_need": "comp_req__vehicle_time__lifecycle"
}
]

[GabrielPinheiro7891]

Done

[BjoernAtBosch]

Everything should be set to ASIL_B as the whole time library is ASIL now

[GabrielPinheiro7891]

Done

[BjoernAtBosch]

Suggested change

	:derived_from: feat_req__time__high_prec_clock_api
	:derived_from: feat_req__time__high_res_clock_api

[GabrielPinheiro7891]

That did not change on main yet. So no change necessary.
PR that will include that change is still open and not merged

[BjoernAtBosch]

I don't think, that we should mark these as component tests because they do unit testing only.
Also, wondering if this combination of tags (component + unit) is possible.
But as shortly discussed on the call let's recheck documentation how this should be handled ...

[GabrielPinheiro7891]

Done

[BjoernAtBosch]

I don't think these tests (in general) do full verification of the requirement.
As mentioned in prev comment - we need to check docs ...

[GabrielPinheiro7891]

Done