Skip to content

process: document quality management process according to template structure #835

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

process: document quality management process according to template structure #835

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

PandaeDo
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo commented Apr 1, 2025

Ref: closes #316

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 1, 2025 •
edited
Loading

License Check Results

🚀 The license check preparation job ran successfully.

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output 
2025/04/02 06:18:13 Downloading https://releases.bazel.build/7.4.0/release/bazel-7.4.0-linux-x86_64...
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server and connecting to it...
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: docs
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: docs
Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (96 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (126 packages loaded, 490 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (129 packages loaded, 809 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (144 packages loaded, 2461 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (144 packages loaded, 2465 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (147 packages loaded, 2474 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (148 packages loaded, 4611 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (148 packages loaded, 4611 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (148 packages loaded, 4611 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //docs:license.check.python (149 packages loaded, 4736 targets configured).
[11 / 13] [Prepa] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java~/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar
[12 / 13] Building docs/license.check.python.jar (); 0s multiplex-worker
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //docs:license.check.python up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/docs/license.check.python
  bazel-bin/docs/license.check.python.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 19.999s, Critical Path: 2.41s
INFO: 13 processes: 9 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 13 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/docs/license.check.python docs/formatted.txt -review -project automotive.score -repo https://github.com/eclipse-score/score -token otyhZ4eaRYK1tKLNNF-Y
[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 76 items.
[main] INFO Found 52 items.
[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 25 items.
[main] INFO Found 25 items.
[main] INFO License information could not be automatically verified for the following content:
[main] INFO 
[main] INFO pypi/pypi/-/docutils/0.21.2
[main] INFO 
[main] INFO This content is either not correctly mapped by the system, or requires review.
[main] INFO A review is required for pypi/pypi/-/docutils/0.21.2.
[main] INFO A review request already exists https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/19880 .

@PandaeDo PandaeDo force-pushed the vohae_quality_management branch from f1c0343 to e9a441b Compare April 2, 2025 06:18
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 2, 2025

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

@PandaeDo PandaeDo requested a review from masc2023 April 2, 2025 06:49
masc2023
masc2023 requested changes Apr 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@masc2023 masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Propose to have dedicated working meeting to address the major topics and relations to other process areas

docs/process/process_areas/index.rst
@@ -26,3 +26,4 @@ Process Areas
requirements_engineering/index.rst
safety_management/index.rst
verification/index.rst
quality_management/index.rst
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Put Quality Management according alphabetical order in the list

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

docs/process/process_areas/quality_management/quality_concept.rst
:status: valid
:tags: quality_management

In this section a concept for the Quality Management will be discussed. Inputs for this concepts is ASPICE
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Input is SUP.1, not complete ASPICE PAM 4.0, but you addressed also something form PIM.3

docs/process/process_areas/quality_management/quality_concept.rst
:tags: quality_management

In this section a concept for the Quality Management will be discussed. Inputs for this concepts is ASPICE
as quality standard. And also in aspect to the development the adressed requirements from ISO 26262, ISO 21434
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ISO SAE ISO21434

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Correct it

docs/process/process_areas/quality_management/quality_concept.rst

Also requirements of standards need to be taken into consideration:

* ASPICE
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ASPICE PAM 4.0

docs/process/process_areas/quality_management/quality_concept.rst
=======================

The Quality Concept is based on the requirements of the standards and were derived into the Quality Performance
Opbjectives that are listed in the Quality Plan :need:`doc__project_quality_plan`. The Quality shall be continous
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Quality Plan -> Quality Management Plan, everywhere

docs/platform_management_plan/quality_management.rst
| The Eclipse `Project Lead(s) and Committers <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#roles-pl>`_ has the quality manager role.
|
| **Project Roles**
| :doc:`/process/roles/index` are defined and matched to Eclipse roles.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we have no re-organized the roles, here the link is only the teams, etc, the other roles are now in the process, areas, we may now create a automatic generated overview table in the process area here

docs/platform_management_plan/quality_management.rst
|
| **Critical dependencies**
| The project has not implemented a quality management system yet.
| But it aims to be conformant to ASPICE, as defined in the management system.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

as defined in the process section, ASPICE 4.0

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

docs/platform_management_plan/quality_management.rst
| As defined in `Committer Training <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/training/>`_ the committers are elected in a meritrocatic manner, meaning those have to show their skills and understanding of the project processes in several previous pull requests.
| As each project can adopt additional criteria for the committers election, we define the following:
| - each committer has to prove his knowledge in quality SW development by
| - an passed training in ASPICE (or equivalent standard, at least 16h of SW management and development specific training by a trusted training provider) and
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ASPICE 4.0, check consistency with Quality Manager Role

docs/platform_management_plan/quality_management.rst
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4.1 Quality Ressources
""""""""""""""""""""""
| A dedicated Quality Manager is defined as part of the Maintainer role.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we have still the Maintainer role?

docs/platform_management_plan/quality_management.rst
.. list-table:: Quality related work products
:header-rows: 1

* - Workproduct Id
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is the list complete? in the process area also module release report mentioned?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@masc2023 masc2023 masc2023 requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Improvement: Document Quality Management process
2 participants
@PandaeDo @masc2023