Remove Covered attribute from req process#739
Conversation
aschemmel-tech
requested review from
PandaeDo,
RolandJentschETAS,
masc2023 and
pahmann
as code owners
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
| * Title and description: For formulating requirements, the following template shall be used :need:`[[title]]<gd_temp__req_formulation>` | ||
| * ID: The naming convention for the ID is defined for every project in a central place (e.g. in the general contributor's guidelines) | ||
| * Furthermore the requirements need to be versioned. Therefore, a hash value of the requirement will to be calculated. The concept is described: :ref:`traceability concept for requirements` | ||
| * Furthermore the requirements need to be versioned to document content changes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a comment from @MaximilianSoerenPollak somewhere, we need to define changes, so e.g. removing typos is not a change. Propose to add here some general statement, what is expected to be a change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We currently have a discussion / issue here in DaC about this topic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * - Description | ||
| - In this attribute the content for the requirement will be specified. Please be aware that a note in a requirement is not part of the requirement itself. This means that notes should only be used to give additional explanation or context to the requirement. | ||
| * - Version | ||
| - Version updated whenever an attribute changed which may affect the linked child requirements. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
explained a little further below
| * - Attribute link | ||
| - What is significant | ||
| * - :need:`gd_req__req_attr_description` | ||
| - Functional changes shall lead to a version change, no formal corrections or modifications of the notes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
see above, needs more detailed explanation, typos, pure formal adaptions are changes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
updated description
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-remove-reqcovered
branch
from
6613e9d to
c50edb7
Compare
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-remove-reqcovered
branch
from
c50edb7 to
a6f5c65
Compare
|
@MaximilianSoerenPollak , any concerns, otherwise we can merge it |
| :status: valid | ||
| :version: 1 | ||
| :tags: requirements_engineering | ||
| :version: 2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this version changed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The rst file was not modified, but the linked requirements_workflow.drawio.svg (and thus the html docu).
MaximilianSoerenPollak
left a comment
MaximilianSoerenPollak
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks fine to me, just that one question regarding the version of that req.
3 participants
Refers: #664