Skip to content

process: add initial tool management #932

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.

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

masc2023
Copy link
Contributor

Resolves: #858

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 15, 2025

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: f3ec30aa-59ad-46b7-adf4-48cc2a39cda9
Computing main repo mapping: 
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 (90 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (98 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (98 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (131 packages loaded, 821 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (134 packages loaded, 855 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (145 packages loaded, 2451 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: 18.170s, Critical Path: 0.42s
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.

Copy link

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

@masc2023 masc2023 force-pushed the masc2023_add_initial_tool_management branch from 3242aa0 to af8341c Compare April 15, 2025 09:41
@masc2023 masc2023 marked this pull request as ready for review April 15, 2025 09:48
@masc2023 masc2023 requested a review from aschemmel-tech April 15, 2025 09:48
@masc2023 masc2023 force-pushed the masc2023_add_initial_tool_management branch from af8341c to c0e3042 Compare April 16, 2025 07:03
@masc2023 masc2023 self-assigned this Apr 16, 2025
@masc2023 masc2023 force-pushed the masc2023_add_initial_tool_management branch from c0e3042 to f8a7453 Compare April 16, 2025 08:03
Copy link
Contributor

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see inline comments

@masc2023 masc2023 force-pushed the masc2023_add_initial_tool_management branch from f8a7453 to 37c6d46 Compare April 25, 2025 10:23
The purpose of the Tool Management Plan is to guide the identification, evaluation and qualification of
project tools.

S-CORE objectives is to use OSS tools for the generation of all required work products. Thus all
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We also use GitHub as a "tool". This is not open source.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

rephrased


**To Step 2**

Based on the found malfunctions or threats judge, if these can be all detected or prevented?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is not a question and hard to understand. Better use:

Suggested change
Based on the found malfunctions or threats judge, if these can be all detected or prevented?
Based on the malfunctions or threats found, assess whether these can be detected or prevented.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

taken over

Qualification
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As method validation of software tool is applied.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The method used is the validation of the software tool.
Or
The method used is software tool validation.
Or
As method "validation of software tool" is applied.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Modified to match last version

Update the Tool Verification Report accordingly to document the outcomes.

For the generation of requirements, verification and analyses the processes defined in the
:need:`wp__platform_mgmt` shall be used (Requirements Engineering, Verification,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would it improve the quality to link to the respective parts for requirements, etc. rather than just say "read the platform management plan"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Add concrete links, as available for now

:complies: std_req__iso26262__support_1141, std_req__iso26262__support_1142, std_req__iso26262__support_1143, std_req__iso26262__support_11441, std_req__iso26262__support_11442, std_req__iso26262__support_11451, std_req__iso26262__support_11452, std_req__iso26262__support_11453, std_req__iso26262__support_11454, std_req__iso26262__support_11461, std_req__iso26262__support_11462

| **1. Purpose**
| The purpose of this checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during a tool verification..
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Two "." at the end of the sentence

Suggested change
| The purpose of this checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during a tool verification..
| The purpose of this checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during a tool verification.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

removed one


| **1. Purpose**
| The purpose of this checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during a tool verification..
| It will not be filled out but considered during the review and monitoring to complete of the Tool Verification Report.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
| It will not be filled out but considered during the review and monitoring to complete of the Tool Verification Report.
| It will not be filled out, but considered during the review and monitoring to complete of the Tool Verification Report.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

adapted


**Optional Section for Tool Qualification**
-------------------------------------------
based on method: validation of the software tool
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
based on method: validation of the software tool
Based on method: validation of the software tool

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

changed

Key concept
***********
S-CORE objective is to use OSS Tools only. The selection criteria for OSS Tool therefore must
include the determination of the Tool Confidence Level `(TCL) <https://www.validas.de/publications/automotive2012.pdf>`_
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does this mean that if a tool is not OSS, I do not need a TCL?
It says currently: S-CORE only uses OSS tools [...] therefore must include [...] TCL

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, rephrased


Activities for Tool Management
******************************

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

tlm stands for tool management correct? Why not referring to as tool_mgmt_creation?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

changed as this was some wrong documentation

@masc2023 masc2023 force-pushed the masc2023_add_initial_tool_management branch 2 times, most recently from ed3fa5e to 4de368a Compare April 29, 2025 10:22
Comment on lines 30 to 31
The purpose of the Tool Management Plan is to guide the identification, evaluation and qualification of
project tools.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Using "qualification" without a clear reference to safety is confusing?! As usually there is no qualification. Maybe just change it to "safety qualification"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please again, forgot looking only to safety, our process framework does conform to multiple standards and for you as user, only our process are relevant, the framework is mapped to the relevant standard and it defines, what we do for qualification, in our case. I add for current state just safe and secure use of tools, maybe replace in future by trustable use in the tool, where trustable may include more than safe and secure

Qualification
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As method "validation of software tool" is applied.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not apply the other methods? I would personally much rather have a tool development process.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What development process? I just said, that we use S-CORE parts for tools too, and independent of that, having requirements or goals or how ever you call it, and you test that is minimum in my view

* Make familiar with the development and supporting process descriptions in :ref:`process_description`
* Make familiar with the relevant sections of the :ref:`Platform Management Plan <pmp>`, here especially with :need:`Tool Management Plan <doc__platform_tool_management_plan>`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
* Make familiar with the development and supporting process descriptions in :ref:`process_description`
* Make familiar with the relevant sections of the :ref:`Platform Management Plan <pmp>`, here especially with :need:`Tool Management Plan <doc__platform_tool_management_plan>`
* Make yourself familiar with the development and supporting process descriptions in :ref:`process_description`
* Make yourself familiar with the relevant sections of the :ref:`Platform Management Plan <pmp>`, here especially with :need:`Tool Management Plan <doc__platform_tool_management_plan>`

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unclear, just understood you changed the order, that is done

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've added "yourself" --> "Make yourself familiar"


Finally the Tool Verification Report is verified and approved, and thus in Released state.

For creating the Tool Verification Report a template must be used.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"The defined template"?

Note however, that technically we'll most likely use markdown or even yaml and not rst files for that. However we can use the template chapters etc.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

you see in the needs the linked templates, so I added the linked template, which is visible in the Sphinx HTML documentation

aschemmel-tech
aschemmel-tech previously approved these changes Apr 30, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

my remarks are all covered

@masc2023 masc2023 force-pushed the masc2023_add_initial_tool_management branch from 4de368a to bd7e53e Compare April 30, 2025 13:55
@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin dismissed their stale review April 30, 2025 15:54

Review outdated

@AlexanderLanin
Copy link
Member

@masc2023 I would highly recommend pushing new commits instead of squashing locally. I now have no chance to see what has changed since my review.
Instead I recommend squashing here on the website once the pull request is approved.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Epic: (Initial) Tool Management
5 participants