docs: update tool requirement status for 7 implemented requirements by FScholPer · Pull Request #620 · eclipse-score/docs-as-code

FScholPer · 2026-06-25T14:27:43Z

Update implementation status from NO/PARTIAL to YES for tool requirements that are already enforced in code (metamodel.yaml + check_options.py):

tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_content: content mandatory_options on all safety types
tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_violates: violates mandatory_links on all safety types
tool_req__docs_saf_attr_fmea_fault_id: fault_id mandatory_options on FMEA types
tool_req__docs_saf_attr_dfa_failure_id: failure_id mandatory_options on DFA types
tool_req__docs_req_attr_validity_correctness: regex validation in metamodel.yaml
tool_req__docs_req_attr_validity_consistency: check_validity_consistency local check
tool_req__docs_doc_generic_mandatory: all attrs enforced as mandatory_options/links

Each updated requirement now includes a :source_code_link: to the corresponding implementation file and an Implementation note.

📌 Description

🚨 Impact Analysis

This change does not violate any tool requirements and is covered by existing tool requirements
This change does not violate any design decisions
Otherwise I have created a ticket for new tool qualification

✅ Checklist

Added/updated documentation for new or changed features
Added/updated tests to cover the changes
Followed project coding standards and guidelines

Frank Scholter Peres frank.scholter_peres@mercedes-benz.com, Mercedes-Benz Tech Innovation GmbH
Provider Information

Assisted by copilot

Update implementation status from NO/PARTIAL to YES for tool requirements that are already enforced in code (metamodel.yaml + check_options.py): - tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_content: content mandatory_options on all safety types - tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_violates: violates mandatory_links on all safety types - tool_req__docs_saf_attr_fmea_fault_id: fault_id mandatory_options on FMEA types - tool_req__docs_saf_attr_dfa_failure_id: failure_id mandatory_options on DFA types - tool_req__docs_req_attr_validity_correctness: regex validation in metamodel.yaml - tool_req__docs_req_attr_validity_consistency: check_validity_consistency local check - tool_req__docs_doc_generic_mandatory: all attrs enforced as mandatory_options/links Each updated requirement now includes a :source_code_link: to the corresponding implementation file and an Implementation note. Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

Update :source_code_link: fields to point to specific line numbers in metamodel.yaml and check_options.py. Add inline RST hyperlinks in implementation notes so readers can click through to the exact code. Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions · 2026-06-25T14:28:09Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //src:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 1089582e-3c16-4eff-b780-130145ae157b
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: src
WARNING: Target pattern parsing failed.
ERROR: Skipping '//src:license-check': no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
ERROR: no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
INFO: Elapsed time: 5.782s
INFO: 0 processes.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
ERROR: Build failed. Not running target

github-actions · 2026-06-25T14:35:34Z

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

AlexanderLanin

AI-assisted review (Claude):

Critical: 0 · Important: 0 · Suggestions: 1

The primary blocker from my prior CHANGES_REQUESTED review — hardcoded :source_code_link: attributes on the needs — has been removed. The branch now differs from current main only in requirements.rst.

What the remaining diff actually does

Requirement	Change	Verified?
`tool_req__docs_doc_generic_mandatory`	PARTIAL → YES, v2 → v3	✅ attrs enforced as mandatory_options in metamodel.yaml
`tool_req__docs_req_attr_validity_correctness`	PARTIAL → YES, v1 → v2	✅ regex in metamodel.yaml
`tool_req__docs_req_attr_validity_consistency`	PARTIAL → YES, v1 → v2	✅ `check_validity_consistency` in check_options.py:281
`tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_content`	NO → YES, v1 → v2	✅ `content: ^[\s\S]+$` on all safety types
`tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_violates`	NO → YES, v1 → v2	✅ `mandatory_links.violates` on all safety types
`tool_req__docs_saf_attr_fmea_fault_id`	NO → YES, v1 → v2	✅ `fault_id: ^.*$` mandatory on FMEA types
`tool_req__docs_saf_attr_dfa_failure_id`	NO → YES, v1 → v2	✅ `failure_id: ^.*$` mandatory on DFA types

Two description bugs fixed: tool_req__docs_saf_attr_fmea_fault_id previously said "DFA" (wrong type), and tool_req__docs_saf_attr_dfa_failure_id previously said fault_id (wrong attribute name). Both corrections are correct.

The tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_violates table was updated to show feat_arc_dyn, feat_arc_sta and comp_arc_dyn, comp_arc_sta for FMEA types. This matches the actual metamodel.yaml (lines 769–770 and 796–797) — the documentation was wrong before.

Suggestion: note the scope of enforcement for fault_id / failure_id

The requirement text says "Allowed values are listed as ID in tables at gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators" — implying value validation was in scope. The current enforcement is presence-only (^.*$). Maximilian flagged this and Frank confirmed the current state is acceptable, which is fine — but it may be worth clarifying in the requirement body that presence is enforced; value validation against the process table is not. That way future readers don't open a new "is this really YES?" discussion.

Not a blocker.

AlexanderLanin · 2026-06-26T19:15:51Z

 .. tool_req:: Safety Analysis Linkage Violates
  :id: tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_violates
-  :implemented: NO
+  :implemented: YES


unfortunately this one is PARTIAL only.

Suggested change

:implemented: YES

:implemented: PARTIAL

requirement says:

feat_saf_fmea --> feat_arc_dyn
comp_saf_fmea --> comp_arc_dyn

but metamodel allows:

feat_saf_fmea --> feat_arc_dyn OR feat_arc_sta
comp_saf_fmea --> comp_arc_dyn OR comp_arc_sta

I do not know which one is better. Is the requirement correct or the metamodel?

AlexanderLanin · 2026-06-26T19:16:21Z

-     comp_saf_fmea  comp_arc_dyn
-     =============  ===================
+     feat_saf_fmea  feat_arc_dyn, feat_arc_sta
+     comp_saf_fmea  comp_arc_dyn, comp_arc_sta


According to context this should also allow feat_saf_dfa --> feat_arc_dyn. And maybe feat_saf_dfa --> logic_arc_int. This tool requirement does not match the linked process requirement. Not an issue of this PR, just not sure what to do with it.

As it's not this PR, I guess we can merge this PR and I'll open a bug ticket instead.

AlexanderLanin · 2026-06-26T19:23:17Z

   :parent_covered: NO

-   Docs-As-Code shall enforce that needs of type DFA (see
+   Docs-As-Code shall enforce that needs of type FMEA (see


Nope. Process requirment clearly states DFA:

Each DFA shall have a failure ID

oh god. you are right. same mistake as when writing the requirement and and as when it was originally reviewed. thats almost systematic now. It feels like this is showing DFA. But it is not. It's just the very bottom of the page!

AlexanderLanin

The requirement text says "Allowed values are listed as ID in tables at gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators" — implying value validation was in scope. The current enforcement is presence-only (^.*$).

Mhh... I did not see this one, good point.

AlexanderLanin · 2026-06-26T19:44:23Z

Summarizing review/fixes:

as we have now invested lots of effort, and verified tool requirements match process requirements, we can make the link versioned, as the tool requirements are now indeed verified
tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_violates was missing link to a backlink requirement, which is implicitly fullfilled. Link added.
tool_req__docs_saf_attr_dfa_failure_id was already discussed to not really fully be implemented, this is now clarified
tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_violates is unclear, issue in process created

FScholPer and others added 2 commits June 25, 2026 14:12

github-project-automation Bot added this to INF - Infrastructure Community Jun 25, 2026

Merge branch 'main' into 1782396615-update-tool-req-impl-status

4de55b0

FScholPer marked this pull request as ready for review June 25, 2026 14:39

FScholPer requested review from AlexanderLanin, MaximilianSoerenPollak, dcalavrezo-qorix and nradakovic as code owners June 25, 2026 14:39

AlexanderLanin requested changes Jun 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/internals/requirements/requirements.rst Outdated

Comment thread docs/internals/requirements/requirements.rst

Comment thread docs/internals/requirements/requirements.rst Outdated

MaximilianSoerenPollak reviewed Jun 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/internals/requirements/requirements.rst

changed to req-id

fccc649

FScholPer mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2026

We need to discuss which changes lead to a version bump #622

Open

AlexanderLanin approved these changes Jun 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

AlexanderLanin requested changes Jun 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

AlexanderLanin added 3 commits June 26, 2026 21:39

make links versioned

a110598

add missing link

e2a4577

reduce/clarify requirement scope

5842546

AlexanderLanin approved these changes Jun 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

AlexanderLanin merged commit 454accf into main Jun 26, 2026
17 checks passed

AlexanderLanin deleted the 1782396615-update-tool-req-impl-status branch June 26, 2026 19:56

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Done in INF - Infrastructure Community Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Conversation

FScholPer commented Jun 25, 2026

📌 Description

🚨 Impact Analysis

✅ Checklist

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

License Check Results

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 25, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

What the remaining diff actually does

Suggestion: note the scope of enforcement for fault_id / failure_id

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin Jun 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

github-actions Bot commented Jun 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading