diff --git a/docs/index.rst b/docs/index.rst index 4be9a3c5..0a9a2844 100644 --- a/docs/index.rst +++ b/docs/index.rst @@ -23,12 +23,9 @@ Module Documents .. toctree:: :maxdepth: 1 - persistency/manual/index.rst - persistency/safety_mgt/index.rst - persistency/security_mgt/index.rst - persistency/verification/module_verification_report.rst - persistency/release/release_note.rst - persistency/kvs/kvs.rst + persistency/docs/index.rst + persistency/json/index.rst + persistency/kvs/index.rst Components ---------- diff --git a/docs/persistency/docs/index.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/index.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8e453d9b --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/persistency/docs/index.rst @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2025 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + +Module Documents +################ + +.. toctree:: + :maxdepth: 1 + :glob: + + manual/index.rst + safety_mgt/index.rst + security_mgt/index.rst + verification/module_verification_report.rst + release/release_note.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/manual/index.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/manual/index.rst similarity index 97% rename from docs/persistency/manual/index.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/manual/index.rst index 08ba1a6e..df20dd55 100644 --- a/docs/persistency/manual/index.rst +++ b/docs/persistency/docs/manual/index.rst @@ -19,3 +19,4 @@ Manuals :titlesonly: safety_manual + security_manual diff --git a/docs/persistency/manual/safety_manual.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/manual/safety_manual.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/manual/safety_manual.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/manual/safety_manual.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/docs/manual/security_manual.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/manual/security_manual.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d7813933 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/persistency/docs/manual/security_manual.rst @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2025 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + +Security Manual +=============== + +.. document:: Persistency Security Manual + :id: doc__persistency_security_manual_v2 + :status: draft + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: YES + :realizes: wp__module_security_manual + :tags: template + +Introduction/Scope +------------------ +| This manual covers the Persistency module of the Eclipse S-CORE platform. + +Assumed Platform Security Requirements +-------------------------------------- +| For the module Persistency, the following security related stakeholder requirements are assumed to define the top level functionality (purpose) of the Persistency module. I.e. from these all the feature and component requirements implemented are derived. +| + +Assumptions of Use +------------------ + +Assumptions on the Environment +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +| The platform and its components are developed as Out of Context (OoC) with assumptions on the environment. + It is assumed that the platform/components are integrated in a secure system, i.e. qualified POSIX OS. + Also the HW related failures are taken into account by the system integrator, if not otherwise stated in the module's security concept. +| + +List of AoUs expected from the environment the platform / module runs on: + +.. needtable:: + :style: table + :columns: title;id;status + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title + + results = [] + + for need in needs.filter_types(["aou_req"]): + if need and "environment" in need["tags"]: + results.append(need) + +Assumptions on the User +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +| As there is no assumption on which specific OS and HW is used, the integration testing of the stakeholder and feature requirements is expected to be performed by the user of the platform OoC. Tests covering all stakeholder and feature requirements performed on a reference platform (tbd link to reference platform specification), reviewed and passed are included in the platform OoC security package. +| Additionally the components of the platform may have additional specific assumptions how they are used. These are part of every module documentation: . Assumptions from components to their users can be fulfilled in two ways: +| 1. There are assumption which need to be fulfilled by all SW components, e.g. "every user of an IPC mechanism needs to make sure that he provides correct data (e.g. including appropriate security (access) control)" - in this case the AoU is marked as "platform". +| 2. There are assumption which can be fulfilled by a security control realized by some other Project platform component and are therefore not relevant for an user who uses the whole platform. But those are relevant if you chose to use the module OcC stand-alone - in this case the AoU is marked as "module". An example would be the "JSON read" which requires "The user shall provide a string as input which is not corrupted due to HW or QM SW errors." - which is covered when using together with safe platform persistency feature. + +List of AoUs on the user of the platform features or the module of this Security Manual: + +.. needtable:: + :style: table + :columns: title;id;status + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title + + results = [] + + for need in needs.filter_types(["aou_req"]): + if need and "environment" not in need["tags"]: + results.append(need) + +Security concept of the OoC +---------------------------- +| + +Security Weaknesses, Vulnerabilities +------------------------------------ +| Weaknesses, vulnerabilities (bugs in security relevant SW, detected by testing or by users, which could not be fixed) known before release are documented in the platform/module release notes . + +References +---------- +| +| diff --git a/docs/persistency/release/release_note.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/release/release_note.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/release/release_note.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/release/release_note.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/safety_mgt/index.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/index.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/safety_mgt/index.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/index.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/safety_mgt/module_codeowners.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/module_codeowners.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/safety_mgt/module_codeowners.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/module_codeowners.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/safety_mgt/module_safety_package_fdr.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_package_fdr.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/safety_mgt/module_safety_package_fdr.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_package_fdr.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst similarity index 98% rename from docs/persistency/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst index ee849252..4b44aaa6 100644 --- a/docs/persistency/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst +++ b/docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ Module Workproducts List * - :need:`wp__fdr_reports` (module's Safety Analyses & DFA) - :need:`gd_guidl__safety_analysis` - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_guidl__safety_analysis')` - - + - n/a because no safety analysis performed for the components. They will be overtaken from the feature. * - :need:`wp__audit_report` - performed by external experts @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ Module Workproducts List - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_temp__rel_mod_rel_note')` - :need:`doc__persistency_release_note_v2` + Component KVS Workproducts List ------------------------------- diff --git a/docs/persistency/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan_fdr.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan_fdr.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan_fdr.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan_fdr.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/security_mgt/index.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/security_mgt/index.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/security_mgt/index.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/security_mgt/index.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/security_mgt/module_security_package_fdr.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/security_mgt/module_security_package_fdr.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/security_mgt/module_security_package_fdr.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/security_mgt/module_security_package_fdr.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/security_mgt/module_security_plan.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/security_mgt/module_security_plan.rst similarity index 99% rename from docs/persistency/security_mgt/module_security_plan.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/security_mgt/module_security_plan.rst index 98e96632..ab72b217 100644 --- a/docs/persistency/security_mgt/module_security_plan.rst +++ b/docs/persistency/docs/security_mgt/module_security_plan.rst @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Security Management Roles - Assignee * - Security Manager - - TBD + - Karthik Vanka * - Module Project Manager (= Feature team lead) - TBD diff --git a/docs/persistency/security_mgt/module_security_plan_fdr.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/security_mgt/module_security_plan_fdr.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/security_mgt/module_security_plan_fdr.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/security_mgt/module_security_plan_fdr.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/verification/module_verification_report.rst b/docs/persistency/docs/verification/module_verification_report.rst similarity index 100% rename from docs/persistency/verification/module_verification_report.rst rename to docs/persistency/docs/verification/module_verification_report.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/kvs/architecture/chklst_arc_inspection.rst b/docs/persistency/kvs/architecture/chklst_arc_inspection.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..84b24115 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/persistency/kvs/architecture/chklst_arc_inspection.rst @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2025 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + + +.. document:: Persistency Architecture Inspection Checklist + :id: doc__persistency_arc_inspection_v2 + :status: draft + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: YES + :realizes: wp__sw_arch_verification + :tags: template + + +Architecture Inspection Checklist +================================= + +Purpose +------- + +The purpose of the software architecture checklist is to ensure that the design meets the criteria and quality as +defined per project processes and guidelines for feature and component architectural design elements. +It helps to check the compliance with requirements, identify errors or inconsistencies, and ensure adherence to best +practices. +The checklist guides evaluation of the architecture design, identifies potential problems, and aids in +communication and documentation of architectural decisions to stakeholders. + +Conduct +------- + +As described in the concept :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` the following "inspection roles" are expected to be filled: + +- content responsible (author): +- reviewer: +- moderator: + +Checklist +--------- + +It is mandatory to fill in the "passed" column with "yes" or "no" for each checklist item and additionally to add in the remarks why it is passed or not passed. +In case of "no" an issue link to the issue tracking system has to be added in the last column (if not solved in the same issue). +See also :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` for further information about reviews in general and inspection in particular. + +.. list-table:: Architecture Design Review Checklist + :header-rows: 1 + + * - Review Id + - Acceptance criteria + - Guidance + - passed + - Remarks + - Issue link + * - ARC_01_01 + - Is the traceability from software architectural elements to requirements, and other level architectural elements (e.g. component to interface) established according to the "Relations between the architectural elements" as described in :need:`doc_concept__arch_process`? + - automated + - Trace should be checked automatically by tool support in the future. Will be removed from the checklist once the requirement (:need:`Correlations of the architectural building blocks `) is implemented. Refer to `Tool Requirements `_ for the current status. + - + - + * - ARC_01_02 + - Does the software architecture design consider all the requirements allocated or belonging to the architectural element, including functional, non-functional, safety, and security requirements and all related design decisions? + - manual + - Check if all requirements allocated or belonging to the architectural element are considered in the design. This includes functional requirements (e.g. functional safety requirements), non-functional requirements (e.g. performance, reliability), and security requirements (e.g. confidentiality, integrity). Additionally, ensure that all related design decisions are taken into account and documented in the architectural design. + - + - + * - ARC_01_03 + - If the architectural element is related to any supplier manuals (incl. safety and security) + are the relevant parts covered? + - If the architecture makes use of supplied elements, their manuals (like safety) have to be considered (i.e. its provided functionality matches the expectation and assumptions are fulfilled). Note that in case of safety component this means that assumed Technical Safety Requirements and AoUs of the safety manual are covered. + - + - + - + * - ARC_01_04 + - Is the architectural element traceable to the lower level artifacts as defined by the workproduct traceability? + - Will be removed from checklist once the requirement (:need:`Correlations of the architectural building blocks `) is implemented by automated tool check. See `Tool Requirements `_. + Details of possible linking can be depicted from :need:`doc_concept__general_traceability`. + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_01 + - Is the software architecture design compliant with the (overall) feature architecture? + - On component level check against the feature architecture, on feature level check other features with common components used. + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_02 + - Is appropriate and comprehensible operation/interface naming present in the architectural design? + - Check :need:`gd_guidl__arch_design` + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_03 + - Are correctness of data flow and control flow within the architectural elements considered? + - E.g. examine definitions, transformations, integrity, and interaction of data; check error handling, data + exchange between elements, correct response to inputs and documented decision making. + Note: consistency is ensured by the process/tooling, by defining each interface only once. + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_04 + - Are the interfaces between the software architectural element and other architectural elements well-defined? + - Check if the interface reacts on non-defined behaviour or errors; can established protocols be used; are the + interfaces for inputs, outputs, error codes documented; is loose coupling considered and only limited exposure; + can unit or integration test be written against the interface; data amount transferred; no sensitive data + exposure; + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_05 + - Does the software architectural element consider the timing constraints (from the parent requirement)? + - If there are hard requirements on the timing a programming time estimation should be performed and also + deadline supervision considered. + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_06 + - Is the documentation of the software architectural element, including textual and graphical descriptions + (e.g., UML diagrams), comprehensible and complete? + - Use of semi-formal notation is expected for architectural elements with an allocated ASIL level. + Is the architecture template correctly filled? + - + - + - + * - ARC_03_01 + - Is the architectural element modular and encapsulated? + - Check e.g. that only minimal interfaces are used. Design should be object oriented. Interfaces and interactions are clearly defined. Usage of access types (private, protected) properly set. Limited global variables. + - + - + - + * - ARC_03_02 + - Is the suitability of the software architecture for future modifications and maintainability considered? + - Check for e.g. loose coupling, separation of concerns, high cohesion, versioning strategy for interfaces, + decision records, use of established design patterns. + - + - + - + * - ARC_03_03 + - Are simplicity and avoidance of unnecessary complexity present in the software architecture and the component? + - Indicators for complexity are: number of use cases (corresponding to dynamic diagrams) + allocated to single design element, number of interfaces and operations in an interface, + function parameters, global variables, complex types, limited comprehensibility. + The belonging code metrics should be checked. + + Notes: + + If the "number of use cases" or "number of interfaces" above exceeds "3" or "number of function parameters" exceeds "5" or the "number of operations" exceeds "20" or global variables are used, a design rationale is mandatory. + + See also if component classification :need:`gd_temp__component_classification` as measure is present. + + - + - + - + * - ARC_03_04 + - Is the software architecture design following best practices and design principles? + - Refer to architectural guidelines and recommendations within the project documentation. + - + - + - + * - ARC_04_03 + - If your software architectural design of the component includes processes and tasks, are their scheduling policies and priorities (at least the needed relation one to another) defined to ensure that timing requirements are met? Please note, that the particular priorities or priority ranges will be probably defined by the project handbook or the software development plan. + + Note: see :need:`std_req__iso26262__software_743` + - Give a reason for these scheduling policies and priorities or explain why not needed. + - + - + - + + +.. attention:: + The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component architecture in scope. + +Note: If a Review ID is not applicable for your architecture, then state ""n/a" in status and comment accordingly in remarks. + +The following static views in "valid" state and with "inspected" tag set are in the scope of this inspection: + +.. needtable:: + :filter: "component_name" in docname and "architecture" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid" + :style: table + :types: comp_arc_sta + :tags: component_name + :columns: id;status;tags + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title + +and the following dynamic views: + +.. needtable:: + :filter: "component_name" in docname and "architecture" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid" + :style: table + :types: comp_arc_dyn + :tags: component_name + :columns: id;status;tags + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title + +.. attention:: + The above tables filtering must be updated according to your Component. + + - Modify ``component_name`` to be your Component Name in lower snake case diff --git a/docs/persistency/kvs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst b/docs/persistency/kvs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7d2a07b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/persistency/kvs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2025 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + +.. document:: Persistency Implementation Inspection Checklist + :id: doc__persistency_impl_inspection_v2 + :status: draft + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: YES + :realizes: wp__sw_implementation_inspection + :tags: template + + +Implementation Inspection Checklist +=================================== + +Purpose +------- + +The purpose of this checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during implementation, +i.e. in the detailed design and the source code of the units. + +The checklist shall be agnostic to which programming language is used. Differences shall be treated +by linking to C++ or Rust specific documentation. + +Conduct +------- + +As described in the concept :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` the following "inspection roles" are expected to be filled: + +- content responsible (author): +- reviewer: +- moderator: + +Checklist +--------- + +It is mandatory to fill in the "passed" column with "yes" or "no" for each checklist item and additionally to add in the remarks why it is passed or not passed. +In case of "no" an issue link to the issue tracking system has to be added in the last column (if not solved in the same issue). +See also :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` for further information about reviews in general and inspection in particular. + +.. list-table:: Implementation Checklist + :header-rows: 1 + :widths: 10,30,50,6,6,8 + + * - Review ID + - Acceptance Criteria + - Guidance + - Passed + - Remarks + - Issue link + * - IMPL_01_01 + - Is the design according to guidelines? + - see :need:`gd_temp__detailed_design` and :need:`doc_concept__imp_concept` + (e.g. are the views done with the proposed UML diagrams) + - + - + - + * - IMPL_01_02 + - Is the implementation according to specification? + - Check if the linked component requirements are fulfilled + and detailed design also matches architecture description. + - + - + - + * - IMPL_01_03 + - Are the design decisions and constraints documented? + - Check also for plausibility of these. + - + - + - + * - IMPL_01_04 + - Are all external libraries used by the component specified in the detailed design? + - Check the automated dependency analysis. + Also make sure ASIL rated units also only use ASIL rated libraries. + - + - + - + * - IMPL_02_01 + - Are the static and dynamic code analysis reports verified for violations? + - All violations in ASIL related code must be justified. This includes the checks of coding guidelines. + - + - + - + * - IMPL_02_02 + - Do manual checks, that are derived from the coding guideline, find no safety critical error? + - Check this for the programming language used (e.g. C++ , Rust ) + - + - + - + * - IMPL_02_03 + - Are detailed design and source code consistent? + - Check if the static and dynamic design descriptions match the code (e.g. naming of elements) + and that the respective traceability is established + - + - + - diff --git a/docs/persistency/kvs/detailed_design/index.rst b/docs/persistency/kvs/detailed_design/index.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b4208bbb --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/persistency/kvs/detailed_design/index.rst @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2025 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + + +Detailed Design +############### + +.. document:: Persistency Detailed Design + :id: doc__persistency_detailed_design_v2 + :status: draft + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: NO + :realizes: wp__sw_implementation + :tags: template + + +Detailed Design for Component: +=============================================== + +Description +----------- + +| Design Decisions - For the documentation of the decision the :need:`gd_temp__change_decision_record` can be used. +| Design Constraints + +Rationale Behind Decomposition into Units +****************************************** +| mandatory: a motivation for the decomposition into one or more units. + +.. note:: Reason for split into multiple units could be- + - Based on design principles like SOLID,DRY etc + - Based on design pattern's etc. + +Static Diagrams for Unit Interactions +------------------------------------- +.. code-block:: rst + + .. dd_sta:: + :id: dd_sta__<Component>__<Title> + :security: <YES|NO> + :safety: <QM|ASIL_B> + :status: <valid|invalid> + :implements: <link to component requirement id> + :satisfies: <link to component architecture id> + :belongs_to: <link to component id> + :includes: <link to sw_unit id>, <link to sw_unit interface id> + + .. needarch:: or .. image:: <link to drawio image> + +Dynamic Diagrams for Unit Interactions +-------------------------------------- +.. code-block:: rst + + .. dd_dyn:: <Title> + :id: dd_dyn__<Component>__<Title> + :security: <YES|NO> + :safety: <QM|ASIL_B> + :status: <valid|invalid> + :implements: <link to component requirement id> + :satisfies: <link to component architecture id> + :belongs_to: <link to component id> + :includes: <link to sw_unit id>, <link to sw_unit interface id> + + .. needarch:: or .. image:: <link to drawio image> + +Units within the Component +-------------------------- + +In your rst file: + +.. code-block:: rst + + .. sw_unit:: cpp unit + :id: sw_unit__<Component>__<title> + :belongs_to: <link to component id> + + This implements the .... + +In your source file, any programming language, here with C++: + +.. code-block:: cpp + + # need-Id: sw_unit__<Component>__<title> + class <class name> { + public: + + }; + +Interface View +-------------- + +In your rst file: + +.. code-block:: rst + + .. sw_unit_int:: <here InterfaceDemo - change it> + :id: sw_unit_int__<Component>__<title> + :belongs_to: <link to sw_unit id> + :implements: <real_arc_int, real_arc_int_op> + + This implements the .... + +In your source file, any programming language, here with C++: + +.. code-block:: cpp + + # need-Id: sw_unit__<Component>__<title> + class InterfaceDemo + { + public: + virtual ~InterfaceDemo() {} + virtual void OverrideMe() = 0; + }; + +- For cpp using doxygen comments + +.. code-block:: cpp + + /** + * @rst + * .. sw_unit_int:: cpp unit + * :id: sw_unit_int__<Component>__<title> + * :belongs_to: <link to sw_unit id> + * :implements: <real_arc_int, real_arc_int_op> + * + * This implements the .... + * @endrst + */ + +- For rust + +.. code-block:: rust + + //! .. sw_unit_int:: rust unit + //! :id: sw_unit_int__<Component>__<title> + //! :belongs_to: <link to sw_unit id> + //! :implements: <real_arc_int, real_arc_int_op> + //! + //! This implements the .... diff --git a/docs/persistency/kvs/index.rst b/docs/persistency/kvs/index.rst index 10938583..166a4b8e 100644 --- a/docs/persistency/kvs/index.rst +++ b/docs/persistency/kvs/index.rst @@ -145,9 +145,13 @@ Footnotes .. toctree:: :hidden: + architecture/index.rst + architecture/chklst_arc_inspection.rst + detailed_design/index.rst + detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst kvs.rst requirements/index.rst + requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst requirements/statistics.rst - architecture/index.rst safety_analysis/fmea.rst safety_analysis/dfa.rst diff --git a/docs/persistency/kvs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst b/docs/persistency/kvs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8476439b --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/persistency/kvs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst @@ -0,0 +1,181 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2025 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + + +.. document:: Persistency Requirements Inspection Checklist + :id: doc__persistency_req_inspection_v2 + :status: draft + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: YES + :realizes: wp__requirements_inspect + :tags: template + +Requirement Inspection Checklist +================================ + +Purpose +------- + +The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during requirements inspection. + +Conduct +------- + +As described in the concept :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` the following "inspection roles" are expected to be filled: + +- content responsible (author): <contributor/committer explicitly named here, who is the main author, as can be seen in config mgt tooling> +- reviewer: <contributor/committer explicitly named here, who is the main content reviewer, must be different from content responsible> +- moderator: <committer explicitly named here, who is is the safety manager, security manager or quality manager initiating the inspection> +- test expert: <one of the reviewers explicitly named here, to cover REQ_08_01 as described> + +Checklist +--------- + +It is mandatory to fill in the "passed" column with "yes" or "no" for each checklist item and additionally to add in the remarks why it is passed or not passed. +In case of "no" an issue link to the issue tracking system has to be added in the last column (if not solved in the same issue). +See also :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` for further information about reviews in general and inspection in particular. + +.. list-table:: Component Requirement Inspection Checklist + :header-rows: 1 + :widths: 10,30,50,6,6,8 + + * - Review ID + - Acceptance Criteria + - Guidance + - Passed + - Remarks + - Issue link + * - REQ_01_01 + - Is the requirement formulation template used? + - see :need:`gd_temp__req_formulation`, this includes the use of "shall". + - + - + - + * - REQ_02_01 + - Is the requirement description *comprehensible* ? + - If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here. + - + - + - + * - REQ_02_02 + - Is the requirement description *unambiguous* ? + - Especially search for "weak words" like "about", "etc.", "relevant" and others (see the internet documentation on this). This check shall be supported by tooling. + - + - + - + * - REQ_02_03 + - Is the requirement description *atomic* ? + - 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 requirement formulation 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. + - + - + - + * - REQ_02_04 + - Is the requirement description *feasible* ? + - If at the time of the inspection the requirement has already some implementation, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_impl` shows this. In case the requirement has no implementation 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. + - + - + - + * - REQ_02_05 + - Is the requirement description *independent from implementation* ? + - 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. + - + - + - + * - REQ_03_01 + - Is the *linkage to the parent requirement* correct? + - 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. + - + - + - + * - REQ_04_01 + - Is the requirement *internally and externally consistent*? + - 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. Is the description of the requirement consistent with all its attributes (if not already part of another check, e.g. does the title fit?). + - + - + - + * - REQ_05_01 + - Do the software requirements consider *timing constraints*? + - This checkpoint 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 consuming a lot of time, one should think of the expectation of a "user". + - + - + - + * - REQ_06_01 + - Does the requirement consider *external interfaces*? + - The SW platform's external interfaces (to the user) are defined in the Feature Architecture, so the Feature and Component Requirements should determine the input data use and setting of output data for these interfaces. Are all output values defined? + - + - + - + * - REQ_07_01 + - Is the *safety* attribute set correctly? + - Derived requirements are checked automatically, see :need:`gd_req__req_linkage_safety`. But for the top level requirements (and also all AoU) this needs to be checked manually for correctness. + - + - + - + * - REQ_07_02 + - Is the attribute *security* set correctly? + - For component requirements this checklist item is supported by automated check: "Every requirement which satisfies a feature requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this". But the component requirements/architecture may additionally also be subject to a :need:`wp__sw_component_security_analysis`. + - + - + - + * - REQ_08_01 + - Is the requirement *verifiable*? + - If at the time of the inspection already tests are created for the requirement, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_test_covered` shows this. In case the requirement is not sufficiently traced to test cases already, a test expert is invited to the inspection to give their opinion whether the requirement is formulated in a way that supports test development and the available test infrastructure is sufficient to perform the test. + - + - + - + * - REQ_08_02 + - Is the requirement verifiable by design or code review in case it is not feasibly testable? + - In very rare cases a requirement may not be verifiable by test cases, for example a specific non-functional requirement. In this case a requirement analysis verifies the requirement by design/code review. If such a requirement is in scope of this inspection, please check this here and link to the respective review record. A test expert is invited to the inspection to confirm their opinion that the requirement is not testable. + - + - + - + * - REQ_09_01 + - Do the requirements that define a safety mechanism specify the error reaction leading to a safe state? + - Alternatively to the safe state there could also be "repair" mechanisms. Also do not forget to consider REQ_05_01 for these. + - + - + - + + +.. attention:: + The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component requirements in scope. + +Note: If a Review ID is not applicable for your requirement, then state ""n/a" in status and comment accordingly in remarks. + +The following requirements in "valid" state and with "inspected" tag set are in the scope of this inspection: + +.. needtable:: + :filter: "component_name" in docname and "requirements" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid" + :style: table + :types: comp_req + :tags: component_name + :columns: id;status;tags + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title + +And also the following AoUs in "valid" state and with "inspected" tag set (for these please answer the questions above as if the AoUs are requirements, except question REQ_03_01): + +.. needtable:: + :filter: "component_name" in docname and "requirements" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid" + :style: table + :types: aou_req + :tags: component_name + :columns: id;status;tags + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title + +.. attention:: + The above tables filtering must be updated according to your Component. + + - Modify ``component_name`` to be your Component Name in lower snake case