Create Req Inspection Template in Folders #229
Conversation
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
31abcba to
120e8e5
Compare
masc2023
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall we not remove the checklist now from the requirements engineering process, guidance an link here to the templates?
PandaeDo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same findings in both inspection lists. Only remarked one.
process/folder_templates/features/feature_name/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
Show resolved
Hide resolved
process/folder_templates/features/feature_name/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
process/folder_templates/features/feature_name/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
process/folder_templates/features/feature_name/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
process/folder_templates/features/feature_name/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
process/folder_templates/features/feature_name/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...der_templates/modules/module_name/component_name/docs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...der_templates/modules/module_name/component_name/docs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| - | ||
| - | ||
| * - REQ_02_02 | ||
| - Is the requirement description *unambiguous* ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would this be already covered as part of comprehensible or do we want to keep it explicitly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would keep, as the guidance hints in another direction including tool support. We could drop if fully automated.
| - | ||
| - | ||
| * - REQ_03_01 | ||
| - For stakeholder requirements: Is the *rationale* correct? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we keep it here as this is for feature requirements? I assume argument is to have one checklist for all level, IIRC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Discussed in process community - decided to stay with one template.
| - | ||
| * - REQ_05_01 | ||
| - Do the software requirements consider *timing constraints of the parent requirement*? | ||
| - This bullet point encourages to think about timing constraints even if those are not explicitly mentioned in the parent requirement. If the reviewer of a requirement already knows or suspects that the implementation will be time consuming, one should think of the expectation of a "user". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - This bullet point encourages to think about timing constraints even if those are not explicitly mentioned in the parent requirement. If the reviewer of a requirement already knows or suspects that the implementation will be time consuming, one should think of the expectation of a "user". | |
| - This bullet point encourages to think about timing constraints even if those are not explicitly mentioned in the parent requirement. If the reviewer of a requirement already knows or suspects that the code execution will be time consuming, one should think of the expectation of a "user". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Basically every code takes time to execute. Maybe we can consider some rewording.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see, I will try to reformulate.
| - | ||
| - | ||
| * - REQ_05_01 | ||
| - Do the software requirements consider *timing constraints of the parent requirement*? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why parent requirements. Also would it be are timing constraints considered properly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this comes from the idea that safety timing constraints usually come from some FTTI set on system level.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
removed as covered in the "Guidance"
| - Issue link | ||
| * - REQ_01_01 | ||
| - Is the requirement sentence template used? | ||
| - see :need:`gd_temp__req_formulation`, this includes the use of "shall". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could consider to refer to RFC2119
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would have said reference to S-CORE formulation template is enough. Why pulling in another standard? I am not in favour of also allowing "must", "should", "may".
| - | ||
| * - REQ_03_01 | ||
| - For stakeholder requirements: Is the *rationale* correct? | ||
| - Rationales explain why the top level requirements were invented. Do those cover the requirement? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - Rationales explain why the top level requirements were invented. Do those cover the requirement? | |
| - Rationales explain why the top level requirements were created. Do those cover the requirement? |
process/folder_templates/features/feature_name/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Currently in progress the piloting in the "baselibs" team: eclipse-score/score#1947 - incorporate feedback here or in separate PR? Discussed in process community - decided to incorporate fixes from piloting here. Set to "draft" until piloting done. |
7398855 to
3039e08
Compare
3039e08 to
0b3df5c
Compare
Resolves: #106