feat: Satisfy gd_req__arch_linkage_safety by a-zw · Pull Request #557 · eclipse-score/docs-as-code

a-zw · 2026-05-27T08:19:42Z

📌 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

github-actions · 2026-05-27T08:20:15Z

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: e0d52282-411d-468a-a080-baebb516e40a
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: 5.544s
INFO: 0 processes.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
ERROR: Build failed. Not running target

github-actions · 2026-05-27T08:27:02Z

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

a-zw · 2026-05-27T12:41:26Z

Consumer test "score" fails with three warnings:

features/baselibs/docs/architecture/index.rst:94: WARNING: feat_arc_sta__baselibs__static_view_arch: Parent need 
`feat_req__baselibs__core_utilities` does not fulfill condition `safety != QM`. Explanation: Safety architecture views 
must only fulfil safety architecture elements. 
features/baselibs/docs/architecture/index.rst:110: WARNING: feat_arc_dyn__baselibs__dynamic_view_arch: Parent need 
`feat_req__baselibs__core_utilities` does not fulfill condition `safety != QM`. Explanation: Safety architecture views 
must only fulfil safety architecture elements. 
features/persistency/architecture/index.rst:77: WARNING: feat_arc_sta__persistency__static: Parent need 
`feat_req__persistency__variant_management` does not fulfill condition `safety != QM`. Explanation: Safety architecture 
views must only fulfil safety architecture elements.

Checked one and the warning is correct.

Created eclipse-score/score#2933 to fix that.

AlexanderLanin · 2026-05-27T20:30:23Z

+  :satisfies: gd_req__arch_linkage_safety
+  :parent_covered: YES
+
+  Enforce that valid ASIL architecture views fulfil only ASIL requirements.


can we mention the exact attribute here? And what exactly is an architecture view. There was so much confusion int he past about what a "view" is, that I would love to simply have the exact need types here.

Yes, should be static and dynamic ...

Good question. The classics are feat_arc_sta, comp_arc_sta, logic_arc_int, real_arc_int. I'll add them.

What about logic_arc_int, real_arc_int, und mod_view_sta? At least in tool_req__docs_arch_views they are listed as architecture views.

@RolandJentschETAS Maybe it's better to extend tool_req__docs_req_arch_link_safety_to_arch to cover all architecture elements AND views? Otherwise it feels like we spread the same requirement to multiple requirements.

MaximilianSoerenPollak

Some comments.

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2026-05-28T07:59:52Z

+.. tool_req:: Check safety architecture view fulfils only safety requirements
+  :id: tool_req__docs_arch_link_safety_fulfils
+  :tags: Architecture
+  :implemented: YES
+  :version: 1
+  :satisfies: gd_req__arch_linkage_safety
+  :parent_covered: YES
+
+  Enforce that valid ASIL architecture views
+  (``feat_arc_sta``, ``feat_arc_dyn``, ``comp_arc_sta``, ``comp_arc_dyn``)
+  "fulfil" only ASIL requirements.


Do we not already have a requirement that does this?
This one here

Also this should be filtered against VALID only no?

Tricky question. We don't have check that in other cases. Any mandatory link may go an invalid item.

We do have this check here:

https://github.com/eclipse-score/docs-as-code/blob/main/src/extensions/score_metamodel/checks/graph_checks.py#L205-L230

i have to ask where the process requirement for this is again.

I believe need._links.values() in graph_checks already covers all attributes including fulfil? That would imply we don't have to check it here again.

Maybe it's better to extend tool_req__docs_req_arch_link_safety_to_arch to cover all architecture elements AND views? Otherwise it feels like we spread the same requirement to multiple requirements.

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2026-05-28T08:01:28Z

+          - safety != QM
+          - status == valid
+    check:
+      fulfils: safety != QM


This has to be status == valid too.
Otherwise we would be checking also when we link against invalid requirements ?

Same as the other comment: We don't require that for other links.

a-zw requested review from AlexanderLanin, MaximilianSoerenPollak, dcalavrezo-qorix and nradakovic as code owners May 27, 2026 08:19

github-project-automation Bot added this to INF - Infrastructure Community May 27, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Backlog in INF - Infrastructure Community May 27, 2026

feat: Satisfy gd_req__arch_linkage_safety

5b8e488

a-zw force-pushed the satisfy-arch-safety-linkage branch from 48ae479 to 5b8e488 Compare May 27, 2026 08:55

MaximilianSoerenPollak reviewed May 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/extensions/score_metamodel/tests/rst/graph/test_arch_safety_belongs_to.rst Outdated

a-zw requested review from RolandJentschETAS and pahmann May 27, 2026 11:44

pahmann requested changes May 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: review feedback

f0d3ddd

a-zw requested a review from pahmann May 27, 2026 12:43

AlexanderLanin reviewed May 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

RolandJentschETAS requested changes May 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: review feedback

b694aac

a-zw requested review from AlexanderLanin, MaximilianSoerenPollak and RolandJentschETAS May 28, 2026 07:26

MaximilianSoerenPollak requested changes May 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: expect-not and metamodel

1f5467d

a-zw requested a review from MaximilianSoerenPollak May 29, 2026 07:08

AlexanderLanin assigned RolandJentschETAS May 29, 2026

Conversation

a-zw commented May 27, 2026

📌 Description

🚨 Impact Analysis

✅ Checklist

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 27, 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 May 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

a-zw commented May 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

a-zw May 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

github-actions Bot commented May 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

a-zw commented May 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

a-zw May 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading