Skip to content

Adding datarouter reqs checklist #335

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

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

Adding datarouter reqs checklist #335

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
196 changes: 196 additions & 0 deletions docs/components/datarouter/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
..
# *******************************************************************************
# Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation
#
# See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional
# information regarding copyright ownership.
#
# This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the
# terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at
# https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
#
# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
# *******************************************************************************


.. document:: Datarouter Requirements Inspection Checklist
:id: doc__datarouter_req_inspection
:status: draft
:version: 1
:safety: ASIL_B
:security: YES
:realizes: wp__requirements_inspect


Requirement Inspection Checklist
================================

Purpose
-------

The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during requirements inspection.

Conduct
-------

As described in the concept :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` the following "inspection roles" are expected to be filled:

- content responsible (author): <contributor/committer explicitly named here, who is the main author, as can be seen in config mgt tooling>
- reviewer: <contributor/committer explicitly named here, who is the main content reviewer, must be different from content responsible>
- moderator: <committer explicitly named here, who is is the safety manager, security manager or quality manager initiating the inspection>
- test expert: <one of the reviewers explicitly named here, to cover REQ_08_01 as described>

Checklist
---------

It is mandatory to fill in the "passed" column with "yes" or "no" for each checklist item and additionally to add in the remarks why it is passed or not passed.
In case of "no" an issue link to the issue tracking system has to be added in the last column (if not solved in the same issue).
See also :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` for further information about reviews in general and inspection in particular.


.. list-table:: Component Requirement Inspection Checklist
:header-rows: 1
:widths: 10,30,50,6,6,8

* - Review ID
- Acceptance Criteria
- Guidance
- Passed
- Remarks
- Issue link
* - REQ_01_01
- Is the requirement formulation template used?
- see :need:`gd_temp__req_formulation`, this includes the use of "shall".
- No
- :need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_quota_bw_reduction` not following schema.
:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_multiple_channels` first word should be Datarouter.
:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_message_filtering`
:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_verbose_messages`
-
* - REQ_02_01
- Is the requirement description *comprehensible* ?
- If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here.
- No
- :need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_server` shall implement the UDP multicast transport of a Dlt server.
:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_multiple_channels` define in glossary multi-channel.
:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_message_filtering` shall allow for filtering messages
per channel based on application ID,
context ID, log level threshold.
:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_verbose_messages` The verbose mode of the original message shall be unmodified.
-
* - REQ_02_02
- Is the requirement description *unambiguous* ?
- Especially search for "weak words" like "about", "etc.", "relevant" and others (see the internet documentation on this). This check shall be supported by tooling.
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_02_03
- Is the requirement description *atomic* ?
- A good way to think about this is to consider if the requirement may be tested by one (positive) test case or needs more of these. The requirement formulation template should also avoid being non-atomic already. Note that there are cases where also non-atomic requirements are the better ones, for example if those are better understandable.
- No
- :need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_multiple_channels` config files should be another requirement.
:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_message_filtering` also has this.
Maybe a central requirement to specify that all parameters shall be
configurable with console or config. e.g. comp_req__log__cfg_precedence on the front end.
:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_server` shall be split for the UDP part and link to only :need:`feat_req__logging__log_sinks_network`.
-
* - REQ_02_04
- Is the requirement description *feasible* ?
- If at the time of the inspection the requirement has already some implementation, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_impl` shows this. In case the requirement has no implementation at the time of inspection (i.e. not implemented at least as "proof-of-concept"), a development expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item.
- No
- :need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_multiple_channels` reword the reference to AUTOSAR? Propse: comparable.
-
* - REQ_02_05
- Is the requirement description *independent from implementation* ?
- This checkpoint should improve requirements definition in the sense that the "what" is described and not the "how" - the latter should be described in architecture/design derived from the requirement. But there can also be a good reason for this, for example we would require using a file format like JSON and even specify the formatting standard already on stakeholder requirement level because we want to be compatible. A finding in this checkpoint does not mean there is a safety problem in the requirement.
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_03_01
- Is the *linkage to the parent requirement* correct?
- Linkage to correct levels and ASIL attributes is checked automatically, but it needs checking if the child requirement implements (at least) a part of the parent requirement.
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_04_01
- Is the requirement *internally and externally consistent*?
- Does the requirement contradict other requirements within the same or higher levels? One may restrict the search to the feature for component requirements, for features to other features using same components. Is the description of the requirement consistent with all its attributes (if not already part of another check, e.g. does the title fit?).
- No
- :need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_multiple_channels` :need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_message_filtering` :need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_bw_quota_config` location is unclear. Define a central location.
-
* - REQ_05_01
- Do the software requirements consider *timing constraints*?
- This checkpoint encourages to think about timing constraints even if those are not explicitly mentioned in the parent requirement. If the reviewer of a requirement already knows or suspects that the code execution will be consuming a lot of time, one should think of the expectation of a "user".
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_06_01
- Does the requirement consider *external interfaces*?
- The SW platform's external interfaces (to the user) are defined in the Feature Architecture, so the Feature and Component Requirements should determine the input data use and setting of output data for these interfaces. Are all output values defined?
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_07_01
- Is the *safety* attribute set correctly?
- Derived requirements are checked automatically, see :need:`gd_req__req_linkage_safety`. But for the top level requirements (and also all AoU) this needs to be checked manually for correctness.
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_07_02
- Is the attribute *security* set correctly?
- For component requirements this checklist item is supported by automated check: "Every requirement which satisfies a feature requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this". But the component requirements/architecture may additionally also be subject to a :need:`wp__sw_component_security_analysis`.
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_08_01
- Is the requirement *verifiable*?
- If at the time of the inspection already tests are created for the requirement, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_test_covered` shows this. In case the requirement is not sufficiently traced to test cases already, a test expert is invited to the inspection to give their opinion whether the requirement is formulated in a way that supports test development and the available test infrastructure is sufficient to perform the test.
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_08_02
- Is the requirement verifiable by design or code review in case it is not feasibly testable?
- In very rare cases a requirement may not be verifiable by test cases, for example a specific non-functional requirement. In this case a requirement analysis verifies the requirement by design/code review. If such a requirement is in scope of this inspection, please check this here and link to the respective review record. A test expert is invited to the inspection to confirm their opinion that the requirement is not testable.
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_09_01
- Do the requirements that define a safety mechanism specify the error reaction leading to a safe state?
- Alternatively to the safe state there could also be "repair" mechanisms. Also do not forget to consider REQ_05_01 for these.
- Yes
-
-
* - REQ_10_01
- Is the requirement description *complete* ?
- For every requirement in the inspection, follow to its parent (feature) requirement(s) and then check if this/these are fulfilled completely by its/their linked children (component requirements, including those which are not in scope of the inspection).
- No
- :need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_verbose_messages` might need a feature requirement.
:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_bw_quota_config` should also map to :need:`feat_req__logging__message_loss_handling` & :need:`feat_req__logging__qos_message_handling`.
-

.. attention::
The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component requirements in scope.

Note: If a Review ID is not applicable for your requirement, then state ""n/a" in status and comment accordingly in remarks.

The following requirements in "valid" state and with "inspected" tag set are in the scope of this inspection:

.. needtable::
:filter: "mw_log_backend" in docname and "requirements" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid"
:style: table
:types: comp_req
:tags: mw_log_backend
:columns: id;status;tags
:colwidths: 25,25,25
:sort: title

And also the following AoUs in "valid" state and with "inspected" tag set (for these please answer the questions above as if the AoUs are requirements, except question REQ_03_01):

.. needtable::
:filter: "mw_log_backend" in docname and "requirements" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid"
:style: table
:types: aou_req
:tags: mw_log_backend
:columns: id;status;tags
:colwidths: 25,25,25
:sort: title
105 changes: 5 additions & 100 deletions docs/components/datarouter/requirements/index.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -12,105 +12,10 @@
# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
# *******************************************************************************

Datarouter Component Requirements
##################################
Requirements
############

.. document:: Datarouter Component Requirements
:id: doc__data_router_requirements
:version: 1
:status: valid
:safety: QM
:security: NO
:realizes: wp__requirements_comp
.. toctree::

Datarouter Services
-------------------

.. comp_req:: Datarouter DLT Server
:id: comp_req__data_router__dlt_server
:version: 1
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: QM
:derived_from: feat_req__logging__compat_dlt, feat_req__logging__log_sinks_network
:status: valid
:satisfied_by: comp__datarouter

Datarouter shall implement DLT server component. Datarouter provides the functionality to
send messages using DLT protocol over UDP multicast transport.

.. comp_req:: DLT Multiple Channel Support
:id: comp_req__data_router__dlt_multiple_channels
:version: 1
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: QM
:derived_from: feat_req__logging__compat_dlt, feat_req__logging__config_log_filter, feat_req__logging__config_entity_id
:status: valid
:satisfied_by: comp__datarouter

DLT server shall support multiple log channels as specified in AUTOSAR Diagnostic, Log and
Trace Protocol Specification. The following parameters shall be configurable statically via
a deployment-specific configuration file
(``<data_router binary location>/./etc/log-channels.json``): Number and names of channels,
Network configuration for channel output, Log level threshold per channel, Log channel
assignments per application/context.

.. comp_req:: DLT Message Filtering
:id: comp_req__data_router__dlt_message_filtering
:version: 1
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: QM
:derived_from: feat_req__logging__filtering_log_levels, feat_req__logging__filtering_entity_id, feat_req__logging__config_log_filter
:status: valid
:satisfied_by: comp__datarouter

DLT server shall support filtering of messages within each channel. The filter shall be
parametrized with application ID, context ID, log level threshold. Initial filter set shall
be part of channel configuration file, located in the following path:
``<data_router binary location>/../etc/log-channels.json``.

.. comp_req:: DLT Verbose Messages
:id: comp_req__data_router__dlt_verbose_messages
:version: 1
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: QM
:derived_from: feat_req__logging__compat_dlt
:status: valid
:satisfied_by: comp__datarouter

DLT server shall provide support for verbose DLT messages. Messages sent from mw::log
library shall be sent via DLT using verbose mode.

DLT Quotas
----------

.. comp_req:: DLT Bandwidth Quota Configuration
:id: comp_req__data_router__dlt_bw_quota_config
:version: 1
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: QM
:derived_from: feat_req__logging__config_buffer_size, feat_req__logging__resource_comm_channel
:status: valid
:satisfied_by: comp__datarouter

The component shall have the DLT bandwidth quota configuration in the file located at
``./etc/log-channels.json`` relative to the application specific location ``/opt/``.

.. comp_req:: DLT Quota Bandwidth Reduction
:id: comp_req__data_router__dlt_quota_bw_reduction
:version: 1
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: QM
:derived_from: feat_req__logging__message_loss_handling, feat_req__logging__qos_message_handling
:status: valid
:satisfied_by: comp__datarouter

It shall be possible to configure the action to drop DLT messages when a quota is exceeded.

Note: The configuration shall be provided as an attribute as part of the DLT quota
configuration file (:need:`comp_req__data_router__dlt_bw_quota_config`).
requirements
chklst_req_inspection
Loading
Loading