Skip to content

Commit 120e8e5

Browse files
aschemmel-techaschemmel-tech
committed
Create Req Inspection Template in Folders
Resolves: #106
1 parent bc0a350 commit 120e8e5

File tree

5 files changed

+323
-1
lines changed

5 files changed

+323
-1
lines changed

‎process/folder_templates/features/feature_name/index.rst‎

Lines changed: 1 addition & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ Footnotes
187187
:hidden:
188188

189189
requirements/index.rst
190+
requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
190191
architecture/index.rst
191192
safety_planning/index.rst
192193
safety_analysis/fmea.rst

‎process/folder_templates/features/feature_name/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst‎

Lines changed: 160 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
1+
..
2+
# *******************************************************************************
3+
# Copyright (c) 2025 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation
4+
#
5+
# See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional
6+
# information regarding copyright ownership.
7+
#
8+
# This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the
9+
# terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at
10+
# https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
11+
#
12+
# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
13+
# *******************************************************************************
14+
15+
16+
.. document:: [Your Feature Name] Requirements Inspection Checklist
17+
:id: doc__feature_name_req_inspection
18+
:status: draft
19+
:safety: ASIL_B
20+
:realizes: wp__requirements_inspect
21+
:tags: template
22+
23+
.. attention::
24+
The above directive must be updated according to your Feature.
25+
26+
- Modify ``Your Feature Name`` to be your Feature Name
27+
- Modify ``id`` to be your Feature Name in upper snake case preceded by ``doc__`` and followed by ``_req_inspection``
28+
- Adjust ``status`` to be ``valid``
29+
- Adjust ``safety`` and ``tags`` according to your needs
30+
31+
[Your Feature Name] Requirement Inspection Checklist
32+
======================================================
33+
34+
**Purpose**
35+
The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during requirements inspection.
36+
37+
**Checklist**
38+
39+
.. list-table:: Feature Requirement Inspection Checklist
40+
:header-rows: 1
41+
:widths: 10,30,50,6,6,8
42+
43+
* - Review ID
44+
- Acceptance Criteria
45+
- Guidance
46+
- Passed
47+
- Remarks
48+
- Issue link
49+
* - REQ_01_01
50+
- Is the requirement sentence template used?
51+
- see :need:`gd_temp__req_formulation`, this includes the use of "shall".
52+
-
53+
-
54+
-
55+
* - REQ_02_01
56+
- Is the requirement description *comprehensible* ?
57+
- If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here.
58+
-
59+
-
60+
-
61+
* - REQ_02_02
62+
- Is the requirement description *unambiguous* ?
63+
- Especially search for "weak words" like "about", "etc.", "relevant" and others (see the internet documentation on this). This check shall be supported by tooling.
64+
-
65+
-
66+
-
67+
* - REQ_02_03
68+
- Is the requirement description *atomic* ?
69+
- A good way to think about this is to consider if the requirement may be tested by one (positive) test case or needs more of these. The sentence template should also avoid being non-atomic already. Note that there are cases where also non-atomic requirements are the better ones, for example if those are better understandable.
70+
-
71+
-
72+
-
73+
* - REQ_02_04
74+
- Is the requirement description *feasible* ?
75+
- Expectation is that at the time of the inspection the requirement has already some implementation. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_impl` shows this. In case the requirement is not mature enough at the time of inspection (i.e. not implemented at least as "proof-of-concept"), a development expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item.
76+
-
77+
-
78+
-
79+
* - REQ_02_05
80+
- Is the requirement description *independent from implementation* ?
81+
- This checkpoint should improve requirements definition in the sense that the "what" is described and not the "how" - the latter should be described in architecture/design derived from the requirement. But there can also be a good reason for this, for example we would require using a file format like JSON and even specify the formatting standard already on stakeholder requirement level because we want to be compatible. A finding in this checkpoint does not mean there is a safety problem in the requirement.
82+
-
83+
-
84+
-
85+
* - REQ_03_01
86+
- For stakeholder requirements: Is the *rationale* correct?
87+
- Rationales explain why the top level requirements were invented. Do those cover the requirement?
88+
-
89+
-
90+
-
91+
* - REQ_03_02
92+
- For other requirements: Is the *linkage to the parent requirement* correct?
93+
- Linkage to correct levels and ASIL attributes is checked automatically, but it needs checking if the child requirement implements (at least) a part of the parent requirement.
94+
-
95+
-
96+
-
97+
* - REQ_04_01
98+
- Is the requirement *internally and externally consistent*?
99+
- Does the requirement contradict other requirements within the same or higher levels? One may restrict the search to the feature for component requirements, for features to other features using same components.
100+
-
101+
-
102+
-
103+
* - REQ_05_01
104+
- Do the software requirements consider *timing constraints of the parent requirement*?
105+
- 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".
106+
-
107+
-
108+
-
109+
* - REQ_06_01
110+
- Does the Requirement consider *external interfaces*?
111+
- The SW platform's external interfaces (to the user) are defined in the Feature Architecture, so the Feature and Component Requirements should determine the data consumed and set on these interfaces. Are output values completely defined?
112+
-
113+
-
114+
-
115+
* - REQ_07_01
116+
- Is the *ASIL Attribute* set correctly?
117+
- Derived requirements are checked automatically, see :need:`gd_req__req_linkage_safety`. But for the top level requirements this needs to be checked for correctness. Also AoU from external components need check for correct ASIL as those are the "origin" of safety requirements towards the SW platform.
118+
-
119+
-
120+
-
121+
* - REQ_07_02
122+
- Is the attribute *security* set correctly?
123+
- Stakeholder requirements security attribute should be set based on Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment (TARA) (process is TBD). Checklist item is supported by automated check: "Every requirement which satisfies a requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this". Expectation is that the feature/component requirements/architecture may also be subject to a Software Security Criticality Analysis (process is TBD).
124+
-
125+
-
126+
-
127+
* - REQ_08_01
128+
- Is the requirement *verifiable*?
129+
- Expectation is that at the time of the inspection already tests are created for the requirement. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_test_covered` shows this. In case the requirement is not mature enough at the time of inspection (i.e. missing test cases), a test expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item.
130+
-
131+
-
132+
-
133+
* - REQ_09_01
134+
- For stakeholder requirements: Do those cover assumed safety mechanisms needed by the hardware and system?
135+
- Note that the feature/component requirements also cover safety mechanisms in case those are needed to mitigate failures found during :need:`gd_chklst__safety_analysis`
136+
-
137+
-
138+
-
139+
* - REQ_09_02
140+
- For other requirements: Do the requirements defining a safety mechanism contain the error reaction leading to a safe state?
141+
- Alternatively to the safe state there could also be "repair" mechanisms. Also do not forget to consider REQ_05_01 for these.
142+
-
143+
-
144+
-
145+
146+
147+
.. attention::
148+
The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component requirements in scope.
149+
Also the need links mentioned in the checklist must be renamed to PROCESS_<old id> to point to the process documentation.
150+
151+
The following (valid) requirements are in the scope of this inspection:
152+
153+
.. needtable::
154+
:filter: "feature_name" in docname and "requirements" in docname and docname is not None
155+
:style: table
156+
:types: feat_req
157+
:tags: feature_name
158+
:columns: id;status;tags
159+
:colwidths: 25,25,25
160+
:sort: title

‎process/folder_templates/modules/module_name/component_name/docs/index.rst‎

Lines changed: 1 addition & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -174,6 +174,7 @@ Footnotes
174174
:hidden:
175175

176176
requirements/index.rst
177+
requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
177178
architecture/index.rst
178179
detailed_design/index.rst
179180
safety_analysis/fmea.rst

‎process/folder_templates/modules/module_name/component_name/docs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst‎

Lines changed: 160 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
1+
..
2+
# *******************************************************************************
3+
# Copyright (c) 2025 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation
4+
#
5+
# See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional
6+
# information regarding copyright ownership.
7+
#
8+
# This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the
9+
# terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at
10+
# https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
11+
#
12+
# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
13+
# *******************************************************************************
14+
15+
16+
.. document:: [Your Component Name] Requirements Inspection Checklist
17+
:id: doc__component_name_req_inspection
18+
:status: draft
19+
:safety: ASIL_B
20+
:realizes: wp__requirements_inspect
21+
:tags: template
22+
23+
.. attention::
24+
The above directive must be updated according to your Component.
25+
26+
- Modify ``Your Component Name`` to be your Component Name
27+
- Modify ``id`` to be your Component Name in upper snake case preceded by ``doc__`` and followed by ``_req_inspection``
28+
- Adjust ``status`` to be ``valid``
29+
- Adjust ``safety`` and ``tags`` according to your needs
30+
31+
[Your Component Name] Requirement Inspection Checklist
32+
======================================================
33+
34+
**Purpose**
35+
The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during requirements inspection.
36+
37+
**Checklist**
38+
39+
.. list-table:: Component Requirement Inspection Checklist
40+
:header-rows: 1
41+
:widths: 10,30,50,6,6,8
42+
43+
* - Review ID
44+
- Acceptance Criteria
45+
- Guidance
46+
- Passed
47+
- Remarks
48+
- Issue link
49+
* - REQ_01_01
50+
- Is the requirement sentence template used?
51+
- see :need:`gd_temp__req_formulation`, this includes the use of "shall".
52+
-
53+
-
54+
-
55+
* - REQ_02_01
56+
- Is the requirement description *comprehensible* ?
57+
- If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here.
58+
-
59+
-
60+
-
61+
* - REQ_02_02
62+
- Is the requirement description *unambiguous* ?
63+
- Especially search for "weak words" like "about", "etc.", "relevant" and others (see the internet documentation on this). This check shall be supported by tooling.
64+
-
65+
-
66+
-
67+
* - REQ_02_03
68+
- Is the requirement description *atomic* ?
69+
- A good way to think about this is to consider if the requirement may be tested by one (positive) test case or needs more of these. The sentence template should also avoid being non-atomic already. Note that there are cases where also non-atomic requirements are the better ones, for example if those are better understandable.
70+
-
71+
-
72+
-
73+
* - REQ_02_04
74+
- Is the requirement description *feasible* ?
75+
- Expectation is that at the time of the inspection the requirement has already some implementation. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_impl` shows this. In case the requirement is not mature enough at the time of inspection (i.e. not implemented at least as "proof-of-concept"), a development expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item.
76+
-
77+
-
78+
-
79+
* - REQ_02_05
80+
- Is the requirement description *independent from implementation* ?
81+
- This checkpoint should improve requirements definition in the sense that the "what" is described and not the "how" - the latter should be described in architecture/design derived from the requirement. But there can also be a good reason for this, for example we would require using a file format like JSON and even specify the formatting standard already on stakeholder requirement level because we want to be compatible. A finding in this checkpoint does not mean there is a safety problem in the requirement.
82+
-
83+
-
84+
-
85+
* - REQ_03_01
86+
- For stakeholder requirements: Is the *rationale* correct?
87+
- Rationales explain why the top level requirements were invented. Do those cover the requirement?
88+
-
89+
-
90+
-
91+
* - REQ_03_02
92+
- For other requirements: Is the *linkage to the parent requirement* correct?
93+
- Linkage to correct levels and ASIL attributes is checked automatically, but it needs checking if the child requirement implements (at least) a part of the parent requirement.
94+
-
95+
-
96+
-
97+
* - REQ_04_01
98+
- Is the requirement *internally and externally consistent*?
99+
- Does the requirement contradict other requirements within the same or higher levels? One may restrict the search to the feature for component requirements, for features to other features using same components.
100+
-
101+
-
102+
-
103+
* - REQ_05_01
104+
- Do the software requirements consider *timing constraints of the parent requirement*?
105+
- 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".
106+
-
107+
-
108+
-
109+
* - REQ_06_01
110+
- Does the Requirement consider *external interfaces*?
111+
- The SW platform's external interfaces (to the user) are defined in the Feature Architecture, so the Feature and Component Requirements should determine the data consumed and set on these interfaces. Are output values completely defined?
112+
-
113+
-
114+
-
115+
* - REQ_07_01
116+
- Is the *ASIL Attribute* set correctly?
117+
- Derived requirements are checked automatically, see :need:`gd_req__req_linkage_safety`. But for the top level requirements this needs to be checked for correctness. Also AoU from external components need check for correct ASIL as those are the "origin" of safety requirements towards the SW platform.
118+
-
119+
-
120+
-
121+
* - REQ_07_02
122+
- Is the attribute *security* set correctly?
123+
- Stakeholder requirements security attribute should be set based on Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment (TARA) (process is TBD). Checklist item is supported by automated check: "Every requirement which satisfies a requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this". Expectation is that the feature/component requirements/architecture may also be subject to a Software Security Criticality Analysis (process is TBD).
124+
-
125+
-
126+
-
127+
* - REQ_08_01
128+
- Is the requirement *verifiable*?
129+
- Expectation is that at the time of the inspection already tests are created for the requirement. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_test_covered` shows this. In case the requirement is not mature enough at the time of inspection (i.e. missing test cases), a test expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item.
130+
-
131+
-
132+
-
133+
* - REQ_09_01
134+
- For stakeholder requirements: Do those cover assumed safety mechanisms needed by the hardware and system?
135+
- Note that the feature/component requirements also cover safety mechanisms in case those are needed to mitigate failures found during :need:`gd_chklst__safety_analysis`
136+
-
137+
-
138+
-
139+
* - REQ_09_02
140+
- For other requirements: Do the requirements defining a safety mechanism contain the error reaction leading to a safe state?
141+
- Alternatively to the safe state there could also be "repair" mechanisms. Also do not forget to consider REQ_05_01 for these.
142+
-
143+
-
144+
-
145+
146+
147+
.. attention::
148+
The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component requirements in scope.
149+
Also the need links mentioned in the checklist must be renamed to PROCESS_<old id> to point to the process documentation.
150+
151+
The following (valid) requirements are in the scope of this inspection:
152+
153+
.. needtable::
154+
:filter: "component_name" in docname and "requirements" in docname and docname is not None
155+
:style: table
156+
:types: comp_req
157+
:tags: component_name
158+
:columns: id;status;tags
159+
:colwidths: 25,25,25
160+
:sort: title

‎process/folder_templates/modules/module_name/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst‎

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ Component Architecture Status
340340
-----------------------------
341341

342342
.. needtable::
343-
:filter: "component_name" in docname and "requirements" in docname and docname is not None
343+
:filter: "component_name" in docname and "architecture" in docname and docname is not None
344344
:style: table
345345
:types: comp_arc_sta; comp_arc_dyn
346346
:tags: component_name

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)