process: verification guide for types and methods #721
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
License Check Results🚀 The license check preparation job ran successfully. Status: Click to expand output |
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
pahmann
force-pushed
the
pahmann_verification_types_methods
branch
from
ad727c3 to
465c4a8
Compare
Additionally, addressing Typos. see #497 Signed-off-by: Philipp Ahmann <[email protected]>
pahmann
force-pushed
the
pahmann_verification_types_methods
branch
from
465c4a8 to
655f13a
Compare
see #497 Signed-off-by: Philipp Ahmann <[email protected]>
aschemmel-tech
requested changes
Apr 3, 2025
| * - Structural Branch Coverage (Code coverage) | ||
| - structural-branch-coverage | ||
| * - Structural Condition Coverage (Code coverage) | ||
| - structural-condition-coverage |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should explain in text why we are deviating from Iso 26262 (our tooling is more reliable for this) and why it is ok (this is even more fine grained as branch coverage and we consider it in argumentation if not 100% are reached)
| section :ref:`verification_concept_types_methods`. This guide helps to get an understanding what | ||
| the different methods and derivation techniques mean and how to create test cases using the same. | ||
|
|
||
| Methods |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please consider to put this in seperate document as we have defined the "gd_meth__" need for methods. And link here.
| least once during the testing process. | ||
|
|
||
| Condition coverage is also creating branch coverage, so a 100% `structural-condition-coverage` will not | ||
| guarantee a 100% branch coverage. The actual branch coverage percentage depends on the actual code |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we need to check this statement
| under test. | ||
|
|
||
| Fro C++ based unit testing gTest is the "software tool" which supports conditional coverage, but | ||
| has no direct option to create branch coverage. This has be considered, while writing unit tests. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
avtually it is gcov which provides the structural coverage, it supports both but it is more reliable for condition coverage
| **4. Design Test Cases** | ||
|
|
||
| Create test cases using the representative values from each equivalence class. | ||
| Aim to cover all classes in your test suite. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing "fuzz-testing" mentioned in SW verification plan
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please align with new definition what is used in S-CORE and remove all TestTypes which are not tests: e.g. inspection, walkthrough, static code analysis, ...
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As part of the interim audit, it was mentioned to better explain the testing methods and derivation techniques.
see #497