Add manual test execution to verification guide and concept

Signed-off-by: Philipp Ahmann <[email protected]>

Author: pahmann

process/process_areas/verification/guidance/verification_guideline.rst

@@ -96,9 +96,18 @@ In order to check the test results for the impact of a change or addition, it is
 execute affected test cases locally upfront using the execution framework of the build tooling
 following basically the steps the CI does locally.
 
+Automated tests can also be executed locally, as the sources and binaries are available for re-execution.
+Failing test cases during re-execution can be reported following the guide :need:`gd_temp__problem_template`.
+
+
+Execution of manual test cases
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
 There may be the need for limited number of manually executed test cases.
 These manually executed test cases are execution script driven, where a script guides through the
 test cases and reports the result in the same logging format as automated tests do.
+This enables parsable execution logs which can be used in automated test result collection.
+Failing test cases during manual execution are reported by following the guide :need:`gd_temp__problem_template`.
 
 Reporting of failing test cases
 -------------------------------

process/process_areas/verification/verification_concept.rst

@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ Also their execution may differ whether it is a QM or ASIL rated test case.
 The rigor is described in the implementation of :need:`wp__verification_plan`.
 
 
-Automated test cases should contain further information about which methods have been applied.
+Automated test cases (as well as manual, where applicable) should contain further information about which methods have been applied.
 The corresponding guidance is given here: :need:`gd_guidl__verification_guide`.
 The identifier of the respective method is to be used as meta data (*TestType* and *DerivationTechnique*).