Skip to content

test: fully verify docs_saf_attrs_mandatory - #923

Merged
a-zw merged 2 commits into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
etas-contrib:fully-verify-docs_saf_attrs_mandatory
Oct 8, 2026
Merged

a-zw merged 2 commits into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
etas-contrib:fully-verify-docs_saf_attrs_mandatory

Conversation

@a-zw

@a-zw a-zw commented Oct 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

📌 Description

Fix requirements coverage.

🚨 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

@a-zw a-zw changed the title Fully verify docs saf attrs mandatory test: fully verify docs_saf_attrs_mandatory Oct 7, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Documentation preview for this pull request is available at:
pr-923: https://eclipse-score.github.io/docs-as-code/pr-923/

tool_req__docs_saf_attr_fmea_fault_id[version==2],
tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_sufficient[version==1],
tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_content[version==2]
:partially_verifies_list: tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_mandatory[version==1]

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.

Wait how can a file called test_saf_mandatory_attrs no longer at least partially fulfill tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_mandatory ? That seems a bit weird to me no?

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.

It does partially fulfil it. However, since test_saf_types.rst fully verifies it, there is no need to mention that here. It only raises the question if the other one really fully verifies it.

I did consider to merge the test files but one file for 6 requirements also felt iffy.

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.

Hmm then we might want to rename it? Or I guess it's fine for rn

@a-zw
a-zw force-pushed the fully-verify-docs_saf_attrs_mandatory branch from d1de0b9 to cc66d0d Compare October 8, 2026 06:27
@a-zw
a-zw requested a lite review from Copilot October 8, 2026 09:33

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🔵 Needs a closer look

Several traceability links do not accurately reflect the test coverage.

0 open findings

What changed in this PR

Updates test-to-requirement traceability for safety and options RST tests.

Changes:

  • Updates safety mandatory-attribute verification metadata.
  • Removes or adjusts redundant requirement links.
  • Updates status coverage mappings.
File Description
src/​extensions/​score_metamodel/​tests/​rst/​safety/​test_saf_types.rst Updates mandatory-attribute verification mapping.
src/​extensions/​score_metamodel/​tests/​rst/​safety/​test_saf_mandatory_attrs.rst Updates mandatory-attribute traceability.
src/​extensions/​score_metamodel/​tests/​rst/​options/​test_options_options.rst Updates status requirement traceability.
src/​extensions/​score_metamodel/​tests/​rst/​options/​test_options_extra_option.rst Updates status requirement traceability.

🧠 Review effort: Lite


Give feedback about Copilot approvals in this survey to enter a drawing for a $150 gift card.

@a-zw
a-zw merged commit ec84a1b into eclipse-score:main Oct 8, 2026
32 checks passed
@a-zw
a-zw deleted the fully-verify-docs_saf_attrs_mandatory branch October 8, 2026 10:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants