Doc: Implementation Process Description by PandaeDo · Pull Request #526 · eclipse-score/score

PandaeDo · 2025-02-27T07:37:16Z

Initial Version of the process description for implementation.

Fixes #309

github-actions · 2025-02-27T07:39:16Z

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

aschemmel-tech

As this is "Draft" I only leave comments:

see inline plus some general ones:
SW development plan document should be mentioned in process and created in this PR
Metamodel change for DD artefacts is missing
Detailed_design_checklist is missing (may be reused from incubator)

aschemmel-tech · 2025-03-03T07:44:04Z

+    |    :id: UNIT_DD_STA__<Component>__<Title>
+    |    :security: <YES|NO>
+    |    :safety: <QM|ASIL_B|ASIL_D>
+    |    :satisfies: <link to component requirement id>


according to docs/process/general_concepts/_assets/score_building_blocks_meta_model.svg (in #343) we expect "implements" link from DD to Component req and "satisfies" link from DD to Component Architecture.

Implements link added

implements link commented out in metamodel, why?

Jochen will check and improve the metamodel in seperate branch

aschemmel-tech · 2025-03-03T09:05:35Z

+   :status: valid
+   :complies: std_wp__iso26262__software_10, std_req__iso26262__software_29
+
+   Implementation of a Unit


https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/blob/main/docs/process/workproducts/index.rst already defines relevant work products: wp__sw_implementation, wp__sw_unit_test, wp__sw_code_inspect -> expectation is to reuse these and remove from the "general" workproducts/index

Reuse of wp__sw_implementation, wp__sw_unit_test. Unclear how to proceed with wp__sw_code_inspect

Now there is a wp__sw_code_design_inspect and a wp__sw_code_inspection - the latter should be deleted.

Also need a discussion about wp__sw_static_analysis and wp__sw_dynamic_analysis - what is the real work product? My understanding was that it would be a report generated by a tool - and this would be part of wp__module_sw_verification_report

the workproducts shall comply to iso 26262 wp and not to req

aschemmel-tech · 2025-03-03T09:10:32Z

+Workflow Implementation
+#######################
+
+.. ? Haben wir einen Workflow für Implementation


no, we had not, but we need, please create those workflows for all the work procucts of impl. process

Workflows for Detailed Design an Unit Test created.

There is now a workflow for creation of detailed design but not of source code. Likewise there is a code inspection but no DD inspection. Recommend to create a workflow "create implementation" and "verify implementation" with the respective outputs.

aschemmel-tech · 2025-03-03T09:26:24Z

That is not sufficient as a guideline. I expect even three guidelines: Detailed Design, Guideline C++, Guideline Rust
And it should define for example for DD: how to fill the template, e.g. which UML diagrams types to use, do we have also Doxygen Style comments for the DD in code (I thought so) ...
And for the C++ guideline: how do we configure the SW, how do we expect comments, how do we do the MISRA checker annotations ...

Currently I´m working on those hopefully I can push a draft today. The checker annotations highly depend on a tool which we still have to decide for

github-actions · 2025-03-05T09:01:08Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check preparation job ran successfully.

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

2025/03/14 10:20:41 Downloading https://releases.bazel.build/7.4.0/release/bazel-7.4.0-linux-x86_64...
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server and connecting to it...
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: docs
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: docs
Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (96 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (124 packages loaded, 426 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (132 packages loaded, 1060 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (144 packages loaded, 2465 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (144 packages loaded, 2465 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (148 packages loaded, 4611 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //docs:license.check.python (149 packages loaded, 4736 targets configured).
[8 / 13] Creating runfiles tree bazel-out/k8-opt-exec-ST-d57f47055a04/bin/tools/dash/formatters/dash_format_converter.runfiles [for tool]; 0s local
[10 / 13] JavaToolchainCompileClasses external/rules_java~/toolchains/platformclasspath_classes; 0s processwrapper-sandbox
[12 / 13] Building docs/license.check.python.jar (); 0s multiplex-worker
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //docs:license.check.python up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/docs/license.check.python
  bazel-bin/docs/license.check.python.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 18.210s, Critical Path: 2.41s
INFO: 13 processes: 9 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 13 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/docs/license.check.python docs/formatted.txt -review -project automotive.score -repo https://github.com/eclipse-score/score -token otyhZ4eaRYK1tKLNNF-Y
[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 69 items.
[main] INFO Found 45 items.
[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 29 items.
[main] INFO Found 29 items.
[main] INFO License information could not be automatically verified for the following content:
[main] INFO 
[main] INFO pypi/pypi/-/debugpy/1.8.12
[main] INFO pypi/pypi/-/docutils/0.21.2
[main] INFO pypi/pypi/-/matplotlib/3.10.0
[main] INFO pypi/pypi/-/pillow/11.1.0
[main] INFO pypi/pypi/-/pyparsing/3.2.1
[main] INFO 
[main] INFO This content is either not correctly mapped by the system, or requires review.
[main] INFO A review is required for pypi/pypi/-/docutils/0.21.2.
[main] INFO A review request already exists https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/19880 .
[main] INFO A review is required for pypi/pypi/-/pillow/11.1.0.
[main] INFO A review request already exists https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/19890 .
[main] INFO A review is required for pypi/pypi/-/pyparsing/3.2.1.
[main] INFO A review request already exists https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/19891 .
[main] INFO A review is required for pypi/pypi/-/debugpy/1.8.12.
[main] INFO A review request already exists https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/19903 .
[main] INFO A review is required for pypi/pypi/-/matplotlib/3.10.0.
[main] INFO A review request already exists https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/19892 .

masc2023 · 2025-03-07T05:45:26Z

@PandaeDo , @vinodreddy-g, can you please open official review and push your branch, at the moment I am not able to build it locally, difficult to review, thank you

vinodreddy-g · 2025-03-07T09:25:39Z

@PandaeDo , @vinodreddy-g, can you please open official review and push your branch, at the moment I am not able to build it locally, difficult to review, thank you

@masc2023 to build it locally you have clone from here qorix-group:vohae_detailed_design , since creating a branch directly on the main score repo is possible only for the committers.

- Includes takeover of unit test workflow from PR #526 - Put static analysis responsibilty to Implementation - Remove Priority of Test property as all test cases get executed. Implements: #320 Signed-off-by: Philipp Ahmann <Philipp.Ahmann@de.bosch.com>

hoe-jo · 2025-03-11T06:01:55Z

+Static Diagrams for Unit Interactions
+-------------------------------------
+
+.. unit_dd_sta:: dd example static


Shall we create a process requirement for plotting an an automated figure compared to the architecture?

No , i think creating a static architecture at unit level to reflect a design pattern might be difficult to automate and i think might be better to do it manually to better think of the design.

Added as process requirements

hoe-jo · 2025-03-11T06:03:22Z

+          -
+
+        * - IMPL_02_01
+          - Is the MISRA report verified for violations which are safety critical?


Are all findings of the static code analysis fixed, marked as FP or justified?

hoe-jo · 2025-03-11T06:04:20Z

Currently I´m working on those hopefully I can push a draft today. The checker annotations highly depend on a tool which we still have to decide for

hoe-jo · 2025-03-11T06:05:24Z

+          - Are the manual check <TBD> of MISRA rules done?
+          -
+          -
+          -


Is the coverage metrics fulfilled?

Described as discussed.

hoe-jo · 2025-03-11T06:09:01Z

+   :satisfies: wf__impl__detailed_design
+   :complies: std_req__iso26262__software_27
+
+   The Unit Design shall archieve the following properties


For process requirements I would expect something which you could test via tools. So is this requirement maybe something which should end up in a checklist?

Delete it from the Process Requirements and add a question on the checklist.

hoe-jo · 2025-03-11T06:10:10Z

+   :satisfies: wf__impl__detailed_design
+   :complies: std_req__iso26262__software_33
+
+   For structual coverage a branch coverage shall be used. Therefore the tool <TBD> is selected.


I would keep the process requirements independent of the tool. The tooling we could document as a some kind of decision

Tooling switched to SW Dev Plan.

hoe-jo · 2025-03-11T06:10:25Z

+   :satisfies: wf__impl__detailed_design
+   :complies: std_req__iso26262__software_29
+
+   The Unit Design and Implementation shall archieve the following principles


Move to checklist?

Moved to checklist

hoe-jo · 2025-03-11T06:36:13Z

+
+We link the unit id to the comments in the code like -
+
+For cpp using doxygen style comments-


doxysphinx?

The process description should be free from any tool, the tools used should be part of the Software Development Plan in the folder under platform management plan.

masc2023 · 2025-03-11T06:53:14Z

+
+   **Purpose**
+   The purpose of this checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during implementation.
+   It will be filled out within the github "inspection" pull request.


again a concrete tool is mentioned, work product to created, e.g. inspection review, how it is done should be part of Software Development Plan

Remove the mentioned tool.

Initial Version of the process description for implementation. Resolves: eclipse-score#309 Signed-off-by: Volker <volker.haeussler@qorix.ai>

Resolves: eclipse-score#309

Ref: closes eclipse-score#309

aschemmel-tech · 2025-03-12T15:58:38Z

+   **Purpose**
+   The purpose of this checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during implementation.
+
+   **Checklist**


please align formatting of the table with other checklists (e.g. for architecture)

aschemmel-tech · 2025-03-12T15:59:23Z

+          -
+          -
+        * - IMPL_04_01
+          - Are the <TBD> manual checks that are derived from the c++ coding guideline done?


please create ticket and add link here.

aschemmel-tech · 2025-03-12T16:00:34Z

+          -
+          -
+        * - IMPL_04_01
+          - Are the <TBD> manual checks that are derived from the c++ coding guideline done?


do we also need to refer to Rust language here? Do we have different checklst steps for C++ and Rust?

masc2023 · 2025-03-13T16:15:35Z

   :input: wp__platform_mgmt
   :output: wp__sw_development_plan
-   :contains: gd_temp__software_development_plan
+   :contains: doc__software_development_plan


please remove, contains is only concept or getting starte, doc__ links only from do__ to the wp

compare meta model in introduction

Rechanged it to the Template

masc2023 · 2025-03-13T16:19:01Z


 **Create/Maintain Software Development Plan**
-Adaption of the Software Development Plan to the Projekt by using the :need:`gd_temp__software_development_plan`.
+Adaption of the Software Development Plan to the Projekt by using the :need:`doc__software_development_plan`.


template was correct, the doc_software_development_plan is already the concrete plan, not a template

Rechanged to Template after I created the Template

masc2023

see my comments

masc2023

Major concerns have been resolved

aschemmel-tech

Good as initial version

vinodreddy-g · 2025-02-28T12:28:39Z

+Template
+---------
+
+The detailded design template :need:`[[title]] <gd_temp__detailed_design>` shall be used to ensure that the correct syntax and attribute definition is used.


Suggested change

The detailded design template :need:`[[title]] <gd_temp__detailed_design>` shall be used to ensure that the correct syntax and attribute definition is used.

The detailed design template :need:`[[title]] <gd_temp__detailed_design>` shall be used to ensure that the correct syntax and attribute definition is used.

vinodreddy-g · 2025-02-28T12:32:28Z

+Creation of a detailed design by using the Template :need:`[[title]] <gd_temp__detailed_design>`.
+The detailed design shall be so exact, that test and implementation can be run simultaneously.
+The generated code and tests shall run the checks locally before commiting/pushing changes to a
+branch to avoid unnecessary cycles. The checks can be executed by <TBD>. Use the explenations of


Suggested change

branch to avoid unnecessary cycles. The checks can be executed by <TBD>. Use the explenations of

branch to avoid unnecessary cycles. The checks can be executed by <TBD>. Use the explanations of

vinodreddy-g · 2025-02-28T12:35:41Z

+branch to avoid unnecessary cycles. The checks can be executed by <TBD>. Use the explenations of
+the tools.
+
+In the CI/CDcd pipeline the checks <TBD> are executed. Use the explenations in the pipeline.


Suggested change

In the CI/CDcd pipeline the checks <TBD> are executed. Use the explenations in the pipeline.

In the CI/CD pipeline the checks <TBD> are executed. Use the explanations in the pipeline.

vinodreddy-g · 2025-03-11T06:54:24Z

+Static Diagrams for Unit Interactions
+-------------------------------------
+
+.. unit_dd_sta:: dd example static


No , i think creating a static architecture at unit level to reflect a design pattern might be difficult to automate and i think might be better to do it manually to better think of the design.

aschemmel-tech

still fine

Fixed copyright header Signed-off-by: Dan Calavrezo <dan.calavrezo.ext@qorix.ai>

aschemmel-tech

fine still

PandaeDo requested a review from hoe-jo February 27, 2025 07:47

PhilipPartsch reviewed Feb 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/process/process_areas/implementation/guidance/detailed_design.rst Outdated

PandaeDo requested a review from vinodreddy-g February 28, 2025 07:29

PandaeDo marked this pull request as draft February 28, 2025 12:56

PandaeDo force-pushed the vohae_detailed_design branch from 82e2575 to 92d3a21 Compare February 28, 2025 14:15

aschemmel-tech reviewed Mar 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

masc2023 added this to PIM - Process Implementation Community Mar 5, 2025

masc2023 added this to the SCORE Process Audit 3 milestone Mar 5, 2025

vinodreddy-g force-pushed the vohae_detailed_design branch from 3777475 to 6486e0c Compare March 5, 2025 15:01

PandaeDo self-assigned this Mar 6, 2025

PandaeDo marked this pull request as ready for review March 7, 2025 09:08

vinodreddy-g force-pushed the vohae_detailed_design branch from 3139d90 to 16f4147 Compare March 7, 2025 09:21

masc2023 moved this to In Progress in PIM - Process Implementation Community Mar 7, 2025

pahmann reviewed Mar 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/process/process_areas/implementation/implementation_workproducts.rst Outdated

pahmann reviewed Mar 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/process/process_areas/implementation/implementation_workflow.rst Outdated

pahmann reviewed Mar 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/process/process_areas/implementation/implementation_workflow.rst

masc2023 reviewed Mar 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/process/process_areas/implementation/implementation_concept.rst

masc2023 linked an issue Mar 10, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request

Epic: (Initial) Processes Detailed Design, Implementation #583

Closed

pahmann mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2025

Improvement: Verification Process enhancements #623

Closed

5 tasks done

vinodreddy-g force-pushed the vohae_detailed_design branch from 3e41405 to afaa7ab Compare March 10, 2025 15:03

hoe-jo reviewed Mar 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

masc2023 reviewed Mar 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

vinodreddy-g force-pushed the vohae_detailed_design branch 3 times, most recently from e85fe24 to 404e5f8 Compare March 12, 2025 08:12

vinodreddy-g force-pushed the vohae_detailed_design branch from 404e5f8 to dc8ee58 Compare March 12, 2025 08:21

PandaeDo and others added 4 commits March 12, 2025 09:33

doc: Implementation Process Description

de1c584

Initial Version of the process description for implementation. Resolves: eclipse-score#309 Signed-off-by: Volker <volker.haeussler@qorix.ai>

doc: Detailed Design concept and example

c874944

Resolves: eclipse-score#309

doc: implement review comments

b3e50b5

Resolves: eclipse-score#309

process: fix copyright check plantuml

cbf94a8

Ref: closes eclipse-score#309

aschemmel-tech reviewed Mar 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/process/process_areas/implementation/guidance/detailed_design_template.rst Outdated

aschemmel-tech reviewed Mar 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

PandaeDo force-pushed the vohae_detailed_design branch from dc8ee58 to debf410 Compare March 13, 2025 15:35

masc2023 reviewed Mar 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

masc2023 requested changes Mar 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

PandaeDo force-pushed the vohae_detailed_design branch from 833c8d2 to fa0bcfe Compare March 14, 2025 07:21

masc2023 previously approved these changes Mar 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

PandaeDo dismissed masc2023’s stale review via d92203c March 14, 2025 09:00

PandaeDo force-pushed the vohae_detailed_design branch from d92203c to b3e50b5 Compare March 14, 2025 09:18

aschemmel-tech previously approved these changes Mar 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

PandaeDo dismissed aschemmel-tech’s stale review via cbf94a8 March 14, 2025 09:35

vinodreddy-g previously approved these changes Mar 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

aschemmel-tech previously approved these changes Mar 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

docs: fix CR header

36a8de5

Fixed copyright header Signed-off-by: Dan Calavrezo <dan.calavrezo.ext@qorix.ai>

dcalavrezo-qorix dismissed stale reviews from aschemmel-tech and vinodreddy-g via 36a8de5 March 14, 2025 10:20

aschemmel-tech approved these changes Mar 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

vinodreddy-g approved these changes Mar 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

vinodreddy-g merged commit 1d253a0 into eclipse-score:main Mar 14, 2025

github-project-automation Bot moved this from In Progress to Done in PIM - Process Implementation Community Mar 14, 2025

pahmann mentioned this pull request Mar 17, 2025

Improvement: Add links to implemenation work products in verification process #705

Closed


		We link the unit id to the comments in the code like -

		For cpp using doxygen style comments-

	The detailded design template :need:`[[title]] <gd_temp__detailed_design>` shall be used to ensure that the correct syntax and attribute definition is used.
	The detailed design template :need:`[[title]] <gd_temp__detailed_design>` shall be used to ensure that the correct syntax and attribute definition is used.

	branch to avoid unnecessary cycles. The checks can be executed by <TBD>. Use the explenations of
	branch to avoid unnecessary cycles. The checks can be executed by <TBD>. Use the explanations of

	In the CI/CDcd pipeline the checks <TBD> are executed. Use the explenations in the pipeline.
	In the CI/CD pipeline the checks <TBD> are executed. Use the explanations in the pipeline.

Conversation

PandaeDo commented Feb 27, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 27, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Mar 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

License Check Results

Uh oh!

masc2023 commented Mar 7, 2025

Uh oh!

vinodreddy-g commented Mar 7, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Mar 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading