Requirements work#624
Conversation
License Check Results🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command: bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //src:license-checkStatus: Click to expand output |
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR updates the project’s requirements/traceability documentation and metamodel annotations to improve linkage traceability for architecture elements.
Changes:
- Added a new tooling requirement (
tool_req__arch_linkage_safety) documenting allowed/required architecture link relations. - Annotated architecture link definitions in the SCORE metamodel with
req-Id: tool_req__arch_linkage_safetyfor traceability. - Expanded the
:satisfies:list for the validity-attribute correctness tool requirement.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml |
Adds req-Id annotations on architecture link definitions to tie them back to the new tooling requirement. |
docs/internals/requirements/requirements.rst |
Updates :satisfies: formatting and introduces a new tooling requirement section for architecture linkage safety. |
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: RolandJentschETAS <135332348+RolandJentschETAS@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: RolandJentschETAS <135332348+RolandJentschETAS@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: RolandJentschETAS <135332348+RolandJentschETAS@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: RolandJentschETAS <135332348+RolandJentschETAS@users.noreply.github.com>
AlexanderLanin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI-assisted review (Claude):
Critical: 0 | Important: 2 | Suggestions: 1
Overall: two logically separate changes bundled in one PR — the satisfies hard-deprecation for feat_req/comp_req (commit 46cfe04) and the new tool_req__arch_linkage_safety requirement. The metamodel changes are clean and the traceability annotations look correct. The main concerns are a silent safety-check gap introduced by the graph_check change and a consistency issue in the requirement table itself.
The existing Copilot inline comments (on consist_of vs consists_of, included by vs included_by, grammar) are correct and should be addressed before merge.
It was only a typo in a single diagram in process. See eclipse-score/process_description#728
AlexanderLanin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI-assisted review (Claude):
Critical: 0 | Important: 0 | Suggestions: 1
The fixup commits (especially e4ac0aa7 "fix: consistently consists_of") have resolved all previously flagged issues: the consist_of/consists_of inconsistency is fixed, the included by/included_by inconsistency is fixed, the warning text with grammar issues was removed, and the "maybe be" typo is gone. The [version==1] constraints are present on the new :satisfies: entries.
The requirement table is correct against the current metamodel:
feat, consists_of, comp, yes, no— accurately documents a planned-but-unimplemented mandatory link; thereq-Id: tool_req__arch_linkage_safetyannotation already covers thefeat.optional_linksblock in the metamodelfeat, includes, logic_arc_int, yes, only optional— accurately documents the mismatch between the process requirement and the current metamodel implementation
One minor observation: rows comp, implements, logic_arc_int and comp, uses, logic_arc_int only list logic_arc_int as the link target, but the metamodel also allows real_arc_int_op for both. This may be intentional (the table documents the safety-relevant subset from gd_req__arch_linkage_safety), but if completeness matters, adding real_arc_int_op rows would make the table a full mirror of the metamodel.
The existing open inline comments from Copilot/other reviewers are stale — all refer to issues resolved by the subsequent fixup commits. This PR looks ready to merge.
No description provided.