process: update metamodel safety analysis #104

PandaeDo · 2025-06-26T07:17:36Z

Ref: closes #102

github-actions · 2025-06-26T07:18:50Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //src:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 89c447c1-b33b-4590-bf5b-65ecd2b47279
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: src
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: src
Analyzing: target //src:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //src:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

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

Analyzing: target //src:license-check (104 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //src:license-check (147 packages loaded, 1752 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //src:license-check (153 packages loaded, 2652 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //src:license-check (158 packages loaded, 2687 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //src:license-check (162 packages loaded, 4820 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //src:license-check (163 packages loaded, 4946 targets configured).
[12 / 13] [Prepa] Generating Dash formatted dependency file ...
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //src:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/src/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/src/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 19.785s, Critical Path: 0.38s
INFO: 13 processes: 4 disk cache hit, 9 internal.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 13 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/src/license.check.license_check src/formatted.txt -review -project automotive.score -repo https://github.com/eclipse-score/docs-as-code -token otyhZ4eaRYK1tKLNNF-Y
[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 83 items.
[main] INFO Found 58 items.
[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 25 items.
[main] ERROR Error response from ClearlyDefined 429

github-actions · 2025-06-26T07:40:36Z

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

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-06-26T09:15:47Z

@PandaeDo is this ready for review or still in draft?

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

Ref: closes#102

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

PandaeDo · 2025-06-26T11:03:27Z

@MaximilianSoerenPollak The draft shall show that I still work on it. In aspect to that our remarks are also warm welcome.

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

MaximilianSoerenPollak

Some questions & some changes needed.

Any questions let me know.

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-07-02T08:30:00Z

If those things are changed. Here are the resulting errors:

folder_templates/features/feature_name/requirements/index.rst:48: WARNING: feat_req__feature_name__some_title: parent need stkh_req__requirements__template does not fulfill condition {'or': ['safety == QM', 'safety == ASIL_B']}. [score_metamodel]
folder_templates/modules/module_name/component_name/docs/requirements/index.rst:36: WARNING: comp_req__component_name__some_title: parent need feat_req__feature_name__some_title does not fulfill condition {'or': ['safety == QM', 'safety == ASIL_B']}. [score_metamodel]

These then also need to be fixed I think. Though that should be us. I'm a bit unsure why it checks 'EXTERNAL' needs here.. that's a bit worrysome.

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

Ref: closes eclipse-score#54

src/extensions/score_metamodel/tests/rst/graph/test_metamodel_graph.rst

masc2023 · 2025-07-04T13:21:09Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/tests/rst/graph/test_metamodel_graph.rst

-   :id: feat_req__parent__abcd
+
+.. Checks if the child requirement has the at least the same safety level as the parent requirement. It's allowed to "overfill" the safety level of the parent.
+.. ASIL decomposition is not foreseen in S-CORE. Therefore it's not allowed to have a child requirement with a lower safety level than the parent requirement as


just hint, in this case we would need to check e.g. ASIL B -> QM(B) or ASIL A(B)

masc2023

Fine for now to test, but one comment, in current release we want only ASIL B, not ASIL D, so how can we find ASIL D requirements automatically and let them not be in the code. May needs some discussion

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-07-04T15:31:47Z

Fine for now to test, but one comment, in current release we want only ASIL B, not ASIL D, so how can we find ASIL D requirements automatically and let them not be in the code. May needs some discussion

That should be an easy check, just checking if safety is ASIL_D in an requirements.

aschemmel-tech

See inline comments

aschemmel-tech · 2025-07-07T09:22:00Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    prefix: feat_saf_fmea__
+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__fault_models__[0-9a-z_]*$
+      violation_id: ^.*$


should be "failure_mode"

This was changed to be consitent accross the types if I remember correctly?

Aligned to the actual PR it's "fault_models". ](eclipse-score/process_description#54)

ok, consistent is nice, but according to #54 above the name of the attribute and the content to be written is completely inconsistent: ":violation_cause: "description of failure effect of the fault model on the element"" - the attribute asks for the "cause" and the description is about the "effect"

I guess we discuss this then tomorrow?

aschemmel-tech · 2025-07-07T09:23:13Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    title: FMEA
+    prefix: feat_saf_fmea__
+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__fault_models__[0-9a-z_]*$


should start with prefix

Corrected it

aschemmel-tech · 2025-07-07T09:23:25Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    title: DFA
+    prefix: feat_plat_saf_dfa__
+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators__[0-9a-z_]*$


should start with prefix

^feat_plat_saf_dfa__[0-9a-z_]*$

Corrected it

aschemmel-tech · 2025-07-07T09:23:44Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    title: DFA
+    prefix: comp_saf_dfa__
+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators__[0-9a-z_]*$


should start with prefix

Corrected it

aschemmel-tech · 2025-07-07T09:23:59Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    title: FMEA
+    prefix: comp_saf_fmea__
+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__fault_models__[0-9a-z_]*$


should start with prefix

Corrected it

aschemmel-tech · 2025-07-07T09:24:24Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    prefix: comp_saf_fmea__
+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__fault_models__[0-9a-z_]*$
+      violation_id: ^.*$


should be "failure_mode"

aschemmel-tech · 2025-07-07T09:25:00Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__fault_models__[0-9a-z_]*$
+      violation_id: ^.*$
+      violation_cause: ^.*$


should be "failure_effect"

Aligned to the actual PR it's "fault_models". ](eclipse-score/process_description#54)

aschemmel-tech · 2025-07-07T09:25:22Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__fault_models__[0-9a-z_]*$
+      violation_id: ^.*$
+      violation_cause: ^.*$


should be "failure_effect"

After discussion I changed it to violation. If needed we shall discuss it in our round.

aschemmel-tech · 2025-07-07T09:39:32Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+      violation_cause: ^.*$
+      mitigation_issue: ^https://github.com/.*$
+      sufficient: ^(yes|no)$
+      argument: ^.+$


This is the only occurence of "argument" - in the process templates it is in every DFA and FMEA. I am not sure if we discussed to remove this and put the in the description of the "need".

Argument should be removed as an attribute. It was decided the argument is inside the 'conent

I missed this one. We deleted it in the metamodel and add a note into the templates in the actual PR that the argument is inside the contend and therefore its mandatory.

MaximilianSoerenPollak

Overall great work, thank you.

Some small comments, requests & questions from my side.

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-07-07T09:44:20Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    title: DFA
+    prefix: feat_plat_saf_dfa__
+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators__[0-9a-z_]*$


^feat_plat_saf_dfa__[0-9a-z_]*$

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-07-07T09:45:04Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+      violation_id: ^.*$
+      violation_cause: ^.*$
+      mitigation_issue: ^https://github.com/.*$
+      sufficient: ^(yes|no)$
+      status: ^(valid|invalid)$
+      mandatory_links:
+        mitigates: ^(feat_req__.*|aou_req__.*|)$
+        verifies: ^feat_arc_sta__[0-9a-z_]*$


In this and any of the other new need types.

Are ALL mentioned links & options/attributes mandatory ? Or are some optional?

Changed the mitigation_issue to optional_links

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-07-07T09:45:30Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    prefix: feat_saf_fmea__
+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__fault_models__[0-9a-z_]*$
+      violation_id: ^.*$


This was changed to be consitent accross the types if I remember correctly?

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-07-07T09:45:57Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+      violation_cause: ^.*$
+      mitigation_issue: ^https://github.com/.*$
+      sufficient: ^(yes|no)$
+      argument: ^.+$


Argument should be removed as an attribute. It was decided the argument is inside the 'conent

src/extensions/score_metamodel/tests/rst/graph/test_metamodel_graph.rst

src/extensions/score_metamodel/tests/rst/options/test_options_options.rst

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

aschemmel-tech

Need to discuss if we want "failure effect" documented at least for FMEA

MaximilianSoerenPollak

Just one more question from me, but I think this is ok.

From my side we can bring this in, depending on the verifies naming status?

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-07-07T14:35:03Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/BUILD

+    args = [
+        "-s",
+        "-vv",
+    ],


Nitpick:

Should be removed.

This can be done in next PR.

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-07-07T14:35:44Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+      sufficient: ^(yes|no)$
+      status: ^(valid|invalid)$
+    mandatory_links:
+      mitigates: ^(feat_req__.*|aou_req__.*)$


I think I saw in the process that 'mitigates' can be left empty.
If this is the case, then this should be a optional_link not madatory.

The mitigation link can be open as long as there is no mitigation (gd_guidl__safety_analysis). To finish a safety analysis a sufficient and linked mitigation is needed.

That then means though that this should be optional?

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2025-07-07T14:36:13Z

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml

+    prefix: feat_saf_fmea__
+    mandatory_options:
+      id: ^gd_guidl__fault_models__[0-9a-z_]*$
+      violation_id: ^.*$


I guess we discuss this then tomorrow?

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

aschemmel-tech

Ok with merge to enable piloting

aschemmel-tech

Fine for me to merge.

Signed-off-by: Volker Häussler <[email protected]>

MaximilianSoerenPollak

👍

PandaeDo requested review from AlexanderLanin and MaximilianSoerenPollak as code owners June 26, 2025 07:17

github-project-automation bot added this to Infrastructure Jun 26, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this to Draft in Infrastructure Jun 26, 2025

PandaeDo marked this pull request as draft June 26, 2025 07:17

PandaeDo requested a review from dcalavrezo-qorix June 26, 2025 07:18

sbachmann-qorix force-pushed the vohae_saf_analysis branch from 7a6985a to 97b50ce Compare June 26, 2025 10:21

PandaeDo and others added 4 commits June 26, 2025 12:22

process: update metamodel safety analysis

940794d

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

process: correct fomatting error

9df6c93

Ref: closes#102

process: format fixed

c964ed6

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

process: graph_check ASIL update

30dcf06

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

sbachmann-qorix force-pushed the vohae_saf_analysis branch from 97b50ce to 30dcf06 Compare June 26, 2025 10:22

AlexanderLanin reviewed Jun 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

PandaeDo added 3 commits July 1, 2025 05:15

process: fix descriptor feat_plat_saf_dfa

1ee4d39

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

Merge branch 'eclipse-score:main' into vohae_saf_analysis

77fb5fe

process: update safety analysis templates

a6d6cec

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

MaximilianSoerenPollak requested changes Jul 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

PandaeDo added 6 commits July 2, 2025 16:03

process: include review findings

28dcfb5

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

process: update graph check

97cb80e

Ref: closes eclipse-score#54

process: add test cases requirements

c59e4e1

Ref: closes eclipse-score#54

process: fix format errors

909a125

Ref: closes eclipse-score#54

process: add checks safety analysis

2255276

Ref: closes eclipse-score#54

process: fix formatting errors

eaf3bd5

Ref: closes eclipse-score#54

AlexanderLanin reviewed Jul 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/extensions/score_metamodel/tests/rst/graph/test_metamodel_graph.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

PandaeDo marked this pull request as ready for review July 4, 2025 13:09

PandaeDo requested review from MaximilianSoerenPollak, aschemmel-tech and masc2023 July 4, 2025 13:10

masc2023 reviewed Jul 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

masc2023 previously approved these changes Jul 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

aschemmel-tech requested changes Jul 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

MaximilianSoerenPollak requested changes Jul 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

process: include review findings

0c6062e

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

PandaeDo dismissed masc2023’s stale review via 0c6062e July 7, 2025 13:16

process: fix format errors

c2210d7

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

PandaeDo requested review from MaximilianSoerenPollak and aschemmel-tech July 7, 2025 13:34

aschemmel-tech requested changes Jul 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

MaximilianSoerenPollak previously approved these changes Jul 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

PandaeDo added 2 commits July 8, 2025 05:23

process: delete ASIL_D option. Add testcases

8e8a0b8

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

process: fix test required options

c3d666b

Ref: closes eclipse-score#102

aschemmel-tech reviewed Jul 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

PandaeDo dismissed MaximilianSoerenPollak’s stale review via 8e8a0b8 July 8, 2025 13:02

aschemmel-tech previously approved these changes Jul 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

Update ASIL_D check

1fbf985

PandaeDo dismissed aschemmel-tech’s stale review via 1fbf985 July 9, 2025 08:25

PandaeDo added 3 commits July 9, 2025 10:27

increase version

e5f5f2a

Merge branch 'main' into vohae_saf_analysis

1886707

Signed-off-by: Volker Häussler <[email protected]>

fix format

0be1f88

MaximilianSoerenPollak approved these changes Jul 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

MaximilianSoerenPollak merged commit 2b10cd4 into eclipse-score:main Jul 9, 2025
7 checks passed

github-project-automation bot moved this from Draft to Done in Infrastructure Jul 9, 2025

process: update metamodel safety analysis #104

process: update metamodel safety analysis #104

Uh oh!

Conversation

PandaeDo commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 26, 2025 • 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 26, 2025

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

PandaeDo commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Jul 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Jul 4, 2025

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech 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!

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PandaeDo Jul 7, 2025 • 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!

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!

github-actions bot commented Jun 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

PandaeDo Jul 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading