Update req inspection for Persistency

docs/features/persistency/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst

@@ -12,23 +12,41 @@
    # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
    # *******************************************************************************
 
-Persistency Requirements Inspection Checklist
-#############################################
 
 .. document:: Persistency Requirements Inspection Checklist
-  :id: doc__feature_persistency_requirements_chklst
-  :status: valid
-  :version: 1
-  :safety: ASIL_B
-  :security: NO
-  :tags: persistency
-  :realizes: wp__requirements_inspect[version==1]
+   :id: doc__persistency_req_inspection
+   :status: draft
+   :version: 2
+   :safety: ASIL_B
+   :security: NO
+   :tags: persistency
+   :realizes: wp__requirements_inspect[version==1]
+
+
+Requirement Inspection Checklist
+================================
 
-**Purpose**
+Purpose
+-------
 
 The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during requirements inspection.
 
-**Checklist**
+Conduct
+-------
+
+As described in the concept :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` the following "inspection roles" are expected to be filled:
+
+- content responsible (author): `<https://github.com/sbachmann-qorix>`_
+- reviewer: `<https://github.com/vinodreddy-g>`_
+- moderator: `<https://github.com/PandaeDo>`_
+- test expert: `<https://github.com/PiotrKorkus>`_
+
+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:: Persistency Requirements Inspection Checklist
   :header-rows: 1
@@ -41,11 +59,11 @@ The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to
     - Remarks
     - Issue link
   * - REQ_01_01
-    - Is the requirement sentence template used?
+    - Is the requirement formulation template used?
     - see :need:`gd_temp__req_formulation`, this includes the use of "shall".
     - Yes
-    - No remarks
-    - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
+    -
+    -
   * - REQ_02_01
     - Is the requirement description *comprehensible* ?
     - If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here.
@@ -61,9 +79,9 @@ The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to
   * - 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 sentence 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.
-    - Yes
-    - No remarks
-    - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
+    -
+    -
+    - 
   * - REQ_02_04
     - Is the requirement description *feasible* ?
     - Expectation is that at the time of the inspection the requirement has already some implementation. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_impl` shows this. In case the requirement is not mature enough 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.
@@ -77,59 +95,66 @@ The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to
     - No remarks
     - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
   * - REQ_03_01
-    - For stakeholder requirements: Is the *rationale* correct?
-    - Rationales explain why the top level requirements were invented. Do those cover the requirement?
-    - N/A
-    - No stakeholder requirements for Persistency KVS needed.
-    - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
-  * - REQ_03_02
-    - For other requirements: Is the *linkage to the parent requirement* correct?
+    - 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
-    - No remarks
-    - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
+    -
+    -
+    -
   * - 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.
-    - Yes
-    - No remarks
-    - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
+    - 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?).
+    -
+    -
+    -
   * - REQ_05_01
-    - Do the software requirements consider *timing constraints of the parent requirement*?
-    - This bullet point 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 implementation will be time consuming, one should think of the expectation of a "user".
-    - Yes
-    - No remarks
-    - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
+    - 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".
+    -
+    -
+    -
   * - 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 data consumed and set on these interfaces. Are output values completely defined?
     - Yes
     - No remarks
     - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
   * - REQ_07_01
-    - Is the *ASIL Attribute* set correctly?
-    - Derived requirements are checked automatically, see :need:`gd_req__req_linkage_safety`. But for the top level requirements this needs to be checked for correctness. Also AoU from external components need check for correct ASIL as those are the "origin" of safety requirements towards the SW platform.
+    - 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
     - No remarks
     - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
   * - REQ_07_02
     - Is the attribute *security* set correctly?
-    - Stakeholder requirements security attribute should be set based on Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment (TARA) (process is TBD). Checklist item is supported by automated check: "Every requirement which satisfies a requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this". Expectation is that the feature/component requirements/architecture may also be subject to a Software Security Criticality Analysis (process is TBD).
+    - For feature requirements this checklist item is supported by automated check: "Every requirement which is derived from a stakeholder requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this". But the feature requirements/architecture may additionally also be subject to a :need:`wp__feature_security_analysis`
     - Yes
     - No remarks
     - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
   * - REQ_08_01
     - Is the requirement *verifiable*?
-    - Expectation is that at the time of the inspection already tests are created for the requirement. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_test_covered` shows this. In case the requirement is not mature enough at the time of inspection (i.e. missing test cases), a test expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item.
-    - Yes
-    - No remarks
-    - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/960
+    - 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.
+    -
+    -
+    -
+  * - 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.
+    -
+    -
+    -
   * - REQ_09_01
     - Do the feature requirements defining a safety mechanism contain 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.
     -
     -
     -
+  * - 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).
+    -
+    -
+    -
+
 
 The following requirements in "valid" state and with "inspected" tag set are in the scope of this inspection:
 

docs/quality/qms_report.rst

@@ -306,8 +306,8 @@ Quality Management Generic work products
       - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='doc__feature_persistency_requirements')`
 
     * - :need:`wp__fdr_reports`
-      - :need:`doc__feature_persistency_requirements_chklst`
-      - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='doc__feature_persistency_requirements_chklst')`
+      - :need:`doc__persistency_req_inspection`
+      - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='doc__persistency_req_inspection')`
 
     * - :need:`wp__platform_arch`
       - -