Repository navigation
docs: add folder_templates - #15
Conversation
0800443 to
6e70452
Compare
masc2023
left a comment
masc2023
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can build in process_description repo locally, had only time for a short walk through, in feature/component folder I miss many document header and realizes links, e.g. in feature requirements, feature architecture, etc., ASIL_D is used in requirements folder of feature, but ASIL_B in module/component´, may make it consistent
| .. feat_arc_sta:: Static View | ||
| :id: feat_arc_sta__feature_name__static_view | ||
| :security: YES | ||
| :safety: ASIL_D |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it might be better to set the default for the moment on ASIL B
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did this on purpose, because I want that the authors think about what they write in every attribute of the document. If they still let it at "ASIL_D" in v0.5 we know we need to question this.
| :id: doc__feature_name | ||
| :status: draft | ||
| :safety: ASIL_B | ||
| :tags: template |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be easier to understand when we use the syntax from our templates e.g. stkh_req__<Title>. Then you can also delete the information above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
unclear what is proposed
| Backwards Compatibility | ||
| ======================= | ||
|
|
||
| [Describe potential impact (especially including safety and security impacts) and severity on pre-existing platform/project elements.] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Description doesn't fit to headline.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it fits, also this was just copied and is not really part of the folder template change.
| [Describe potential impact (especially including safety and security impacts) and severity on pre-existing platform/project elements.] | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Security Impact |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it could also be helpful to describe that there might be not all information's available and that they shall be iterative updated by the results of the security process elements. Same comment also fit's for safety.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok, added a hint to the note.
| :satisfies: stkh_req__requirements__as_code | ||
| :status: invalid | ||
|
|
||
| The Feature shall do xyz to the user to bring him to this condition at this time |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be helpful to link the Requirement Formulation Template as a note in here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added link to req guideline
|
|
||
| .. code-block:: rst | ||
|
|
||
| .. feat_saf_dfa:: <Element descriptor> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You might use the current version of the DFA
.. feat_saf_dfa::
| :verifies:
| 🆔 feat_saf_DFA____
| :violation_id: <ID from DFA failure initiators :need:gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators>
| :violation_cause: "description of failure effect of the failure initiator on the element"
| :mitigation: < NONE|ID from Feature Requirement>
| :mitigation_issue: <ID from Issue Tracker| None if no issue needed>
| :mitigation_coverage: <0..100%>
| :sufficient: <yes|no>
| :argument:
| :status: <valid|invalid>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Better update when the Safety Analysis PR is accepted/merged.
| # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 | ||
| # ******************************************************************************* | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might also be helpful to add a link to the related process. Also at the other documents. This could catch some questions when somebody doesn't know the workproduct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as the Safety Analysis process is not existing now, no link possible. But will improve the other templates.
|
|
||
| .. code-block:: rst | ||
|
|
||
| .. feat_saf_fmea:: <Element descriptor> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| .. feat_saf_fmea::
| :verifies:
| 🆔 feat_saf_FMEA____
| :failure_mode: <ID from fault model :need:gd_guidl__fault_models>
| :failure_effect: "description of failure effect of the failure initiator on the element"
| :mitigation: < NONE|ID from Feature Requirement>
| :mitigation_issue: <ID from Issue Tracker| None if no issue needed>
| :mitigation_coverage: <0..100%>
| :sufficient: <yes|no>
| :argument:
| :status: <valid|invalid>
| - see below | ||
|
|
||
| * - :need:`wp__feature_safety_analysis` | ||
| - <link to process> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does not exist at the moment
| - <automated> | ||
|
|
||
| * - :need:`wp__feature_dfa` | ||
| - <Link to process> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does not exist at the moment
|
Ref: closes #1106
b00a4bc to
f69ffab
Compare
Ref: closes #1106
f69ffab to
52249f9
Compare
Ref: closes #1106
this PR copies #1124 from score repo - you can see the documentation there or build locally (if this is possible for you)