process: document safety analysis #902

PandaeDo · 2025-04-11T08:22:17Z

No description provided.

github-actions · 2025-04-11T08:23:08Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //:license-check

Status: ✅ Passed

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 5089b760-a49c-4727-856d-cc8392839909
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (91 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (124 packages loaded, 277 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (131 packages loaded, 823 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (135 packages loaded, 1637 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (145 packages loaded, 2465 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (145 packages loaded, 2465 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (149 packages loaded, 4611 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (150 packages loaded, 4737 targets configured).
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 14.714s, Critical Path: 0.33s
INFO: 13 processes: 4 disk cache hit, 9 internal.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 13 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./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 24 items.
[main] INFO Found 24 items.
[main] INFO Vetted license information was found for all content. No further investigation is required.

github-actions · 2025-04-11T08:25:14Z

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

masc2023

Please check also required updates of Software Development Plan

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:10:40Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/safety_analysis_workproducts.rst

+   :complies: std_wp__iso26262__analysis_851, std_wp__iso26262__software_752
+
+   Bottom-Up Safety Analysis with e.g. FMEA method, verifies the feature architecture (as part of SW Safety Concept)
+   - Detection and prevention mitigations linked to Software Feature Requirements or Assumptions of Use


May link here to the correct WPs per need, AoU are here concrete Feature Assumption of Use

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:14:37Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/safety_analysis_workproducts.rst

+   :status: valid
+   :complies: std_wp__iso26262__software_754
+
+   Depends on architecture, FMEA and DFA tooling.


This should be updated to make it concrete and as said, update or link to SW Development Plan accordingly

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:18:42Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/safety_analysis_workflow.rst


 todo: need to add guidance and standard links

-
 .. workflow:: Analyse Feature Architecture
   :id: wf__analyse_featarch
   :status: draft


We defined to have a new role for that as Resp., Safety Engineer (t.b.d. including Role description), rl_contributor, rl_committer shall support, would remove technical lead as supporter, comment is valid for all workflows, where is the Architecture Verification done?

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:19:43Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/safety_analysis_roles.rst

+
+Contributing Roles:
+
+   * :need:`Contributor <rl__contributor>`


Add it to workflows, otherwise not part here, would remove leads, and add missing Safety Engineer Role with complete description

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:20:35Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/index.rst

+   :maxdepth: 1
+
+   guidance/index
+   safety_analysis_concept


may change order, to start with getting started, concept, guidance, etc.

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:42:14Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/guidance/safety_analysis_guideline.rst

+The analysis is finished, if for each identified faults a mechanism/measure exists.
+Unless the attribute sufficient is yes, measure and argument attribute can be still empty.
+
+**Examples:**


may link here toe the introduction, building model, where this example is available as image

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:44:22Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/guidance/safety_analysis_process_reqs.rst

+
+   Safety Analysis shall be linked to its adjacent level via the attribute mitigates.
+
+      * Feature Safety Analysis <-> feature architecture


check traceability model, there are more links

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:44:54Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/guidance/safety_analysis_process_reqs.rst

+      * 0 to 100 percent
+
+.. gd_req:: Safety Analysis attribute: link to Aou
+   :id: gd_req__saf__attr_aou


see above, also requirements

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:46:08Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/guidance/safety_analysis_process_reqs.rst

+
+   It shall be checked that Safety Analysis (Safety != QM) can only be linked against elements with the same ASIL.
+
+.. needextend:: "process_areas/requirements_engineering" in docname


you need to change that to safety_analysis

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T10:46:24Z

docs/process/process_areas/safety_analysis/guidance/safety_analysis_process_reqs.rst

+   It shall be checked if all mandatory attributes for each Safety Analysis is provided by the user. For all Safety Analysis following attributes shall be mandatory:
+
+   .. needtable:: Overview mandatory Safety Analysis attributes
+      :filter: "mandatory" in tags and "attribute" in tags and "safety analysis" in tags and type == "gd_req"


does not work, other attributes are shown, compare sphinx-docu, see comment for needextend

masc2023 · 2025-04-11T14:51:12Z

Architecture Verification is part of Architecture Design, can be removed from Safety Analysis, see https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/pull/907/files#diff-c89206dc1e9d878523aa319232e3ee40c242ee096987e2cdcee145c61cee71ab

PandaeDo added 3 commits April 8, 2025 15:45

process: documentation of safety analyisis process

896a15a

Ref: closes eclipse-score#310

process: add rasic

90a3c85

Ref: closes eclipse-score#310

process: process req and linking to standard

953fe2f

Ref: closes eclipse-score#310

masc2023 requested changes Apr 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

process: document safety analysis #902

process: document safety analysis #902

PandaeDo commented Apr 11, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 11, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 left a comment

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 commented Apr 11, 2025


		Safety Analysis shall be linked to its adjacent level via the attribute mitigates.

		* Feature Safety Analysis <-> feature architecture


		It shall be checked that Safety Analysis (Safety != QM) can only be linked against elements with the same ASIL.

		.. needextend:: "process_areas/requirements_engineering" in docname

process: document safety analysis #902

Are you sure you want to change the base?

process: document safety analysis #902

Conversation

PandaeDo commented Apr 11, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 11, 2025

License Check Results

github-actions bot commented Apr 11, 2025

masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

masc2023 commented Apr 11, 2025