component_classification.rst

Component Classification

.. document:: Log Component Classification
   :id: doc__log_comp_class
   :status: draft
   :safety: QM
   :security: NO
   :realizes: wp__sw_component_class
   :tags: log

Classification of <component>

<Link to OSS component source (e.g. in github) including the selected version>

Additional documentation considered:

<list of documentation links>

Step 1: Determine (P): the uncertainty of the Processes applied

Apply the process measures to determine (P).

The result of a process measure shall have as outcome [HE, PE, NE]

- HE: High Evidence

- PE: Partly Evidence but Manageable

- NE: No Evidence

Determine (P)

Id	Indicator for applying process	Result	Rationale for result
1	Are rules, state-of-the art processes applied for the design, implementation and verification?	<HE|PE|NE>	<Rationale for result>
2	Are requirements available?	<HE|PE|NE>	<Rationale for result>
3	Are specifications for functionalities and properties available (architecture)?	<HE|PE|NE>	<Rationale for result>
4	Are design specifications available?	<HE|PE|NE>	<Rationale for result>
5	Are configuration specification and data available, if applicable?	<HE|PE|NE>	<Rationale for result>
6	Are verification measures including tests and reports available?	<HE|PE|NE>	<Rationale for result>

(P=1) shall be selected when none of the determined process measures indicate PE or NE.

(P=2) shall be selected when at least one of the determined process measures indicate PE or NE, but the gaps evaluated are acceptable, means

the risk of systematic faults due to these gaps is sufficiently low or manageable by mitigating the gaps.

(P=3) in all other cases.

<component name> is determined as P=<1|2|3>

Step 2: Determine (C): the uncertainty of finding systematic faults based on the Complexity

Apply the complexity measures to determine (C).

The result of a complexity measure shall have as outcome [NH, HM, NM]

- NH: Not High

- HM: High but Manageable

- NM: high and Not Manageable

Complexity measure for programming language: <C++ or RUST>

<select the correct table below (table for C++ is TBD)>

Determine (C) for RUST

Id	Indicator for high Complexity	Complexity measure Tool	Result	Number
1	High amount of Lines of Code	Lines of Code (without comments) (generated code is excluded, e.g. ProtoCmpl)	<NH|HM|NM>	<Number>
2	Unsafe code used / total unsafe code	Count: LoUC+N: lines of unsafe code with safety note LoUC : lines of unsafe code, no safety note	<NH|HM|NM>	<Number>
3	Test exists / Coverage (Function, Line) (maybe better: testability, but how to measure?)	Existing Tests Coverage	<NH|HM|NM>	<Number>
4	High amount of public function interfaces	Number of public function interfaces	<NH|HM|NM>	<RNumber>
5	High amount of function parameters	Number of parameters	<NH|HM|NM>	<Number>

(C=1) shall be selected when none of the determined complexity measures indicate HM or NM.

(C=2) shall be selected when at least one of the determined complexity measures indicate HM or NM, but the gaps evaluated are acceptable, means

the risk of systematic faults due to these gaps is sufficiently low in the context of the project or manageable by mitigating the gaps.

(C=3) in all other cases.

<component name> is determined as C=<1|2|3>

Step 3: Determine (CLAS_OUT): the classification outcome

Select CLAS_OUT depending on the determined values of (C) and (P)

( C )	( P )
	1	2	3
1	Q	Q	QR
2	QR	QR	QR
3	QR	QR	NQ

<component name> is classified as CLAS_OUT=<Q|QR|NQ>

Step 4: Document all results and rationale for choosing (P) and (C) and (CLAS_OUT)

This document

Step 5: Based on (CLAS_OUT) select the activities

As soon as the change request containing this is in status "Accepted", the module safety plan for the component development is adapted based on the following: (select according to above result)

- Q: Follow the processes for qualification of software components in a safety context.

- QR: Follow the process for pre-existing software architectural elements

- NQ: Do no use this element in safety context