Utils Requirements Inspection Checklist
status: valid
security: YES
safety: ASIL_B
version: 1
realizes: wp__requirements_inspect
doc__utils_req_inspection
Generic Document

Requirement Inspection Checklist#

Purpose#

The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during requirements inspection.

Conduct#

As described in the concept doc_concept__wp_inspections the following “inspection roles” are expected to be filled:

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 doc_concept__wp_inspections for further information about reviews in general and inspection in particular.

Table 41 Component Requirement Inspection Checklist#

Review ID

Acceptance Criteria

Guidance

Passed

Remarks

Issue link

REQ_01_01

Is the requirement formulation template used?

see gd_temp__req_formulation, this includes the use of “shall”.

YES

All requirements use “shall” and the correct directive with required attributes.

REQ_02_01

Is the requirement description comprehensible ?

If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here.

YES

All requirements are clear and understandable.

REQ_02_02

Is the requirement description unambiguous ?

Especially search for “weak words” like “about”, “etc.”, “relevant” and others (see the internet documentation on this). This check shall be supported by tooling.

NO

Deterministic Behavior (comp_req__utils__deterministic_behavior) - “predictable manner” is a weak, un-measurable phrase

Issue #395

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 requirement formulation 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.

NO

Base64 Encoding and Decoding (comp_req__utils__base64) - Non-atomic, covers both encodding and decoding in single requirement Deterministic Behavior (comp_req__utils__deterministic_behavior) - Non-atomic, combines “predictable manner” and “without dynamic memory allocation” in one statement.

Issue #395

REQ_02_04

Is the requirement description feasible ?

If at the time of the inspection the requirement has already some implementation, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also gd_req__req_attr_impl shows this. In case the requirement has no implementation 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.

NO

Scoped Operation Management (comp_req__utils__scoped_operation) - different component , not belong to utils , need to move

Issue #395

REQ_02_05

Is the requirement description independent from implementation ?

This checkpoint should improve requirements definition in the sense that the “what” is described and not the “how” - the latter should be described in architecture/design derived from the requirement. But there can also be a good reason for this, for example we would require using a file format like JSON and even specify the formatting standard already on stakeholder requirement level because we want to be compatible. A finding in this checkpoint does not mean there is a safety problem in the requirement.

YES

All requirements describe “what” not “how”.

REQ_03_01

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

All requirements linked to feat_req__baselibs__core_utilities and feat_req__baselibs__safety. With PR #387 this was changed to feat_req__baselibs__utils_library, also ok.

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. Is the description of the requirement consistent with all its attributes (if not already part of another check, e.g. does the title fit?).

YES

Requirements consistent apart from topic raised in REQ_07_02

REQ_05_01

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”.

NO

Deterministic Behavior (comp_req__utils__deterministic_behavior) uses “predictable manner” but defines no timing bounds. Requirement should be removed or rewritten.

Issue #395

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 input data use and setting of output data for these interfaces. Are all output values defined?

YES

External interfaces are defined at the architecture level for all three requirements.

REQ_07_01

Is the safety attribute set correctly?

Derived requirements are checked automatically, see gd_req__req_linkage_safety. But for the top level requirements (and also all AoU) this needs to be checked manually for correctness.

YES

All requirements correctly set safety: ASIL_B, consistent with Utils (comp__baselibs_utils).

REQ_07_02

Is the attribute security set correctly?

For component requirements this checklist item is supported by automated check: “Every requirement which satisfies a feature requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this”. But the component requirements/architecture may additionally also be subject to a wp__sw_component_security_analysis.

NO

All requirements have declare security “NO”, but the parent document (Utils Library Requirements (doc__utils_lib_requirements)), the component (Utils (comp__baselibs_utils)), and all architecture interface operations are marked security “YES”. This is a direct inconsistency.

PR #387

REQ_08_01

Is the requirement verifiable?

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 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.

NO

Following requirement needs clarification before testability can be confirmed:

Following requirements are directly testable:

Issue #395

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.

NO

Deterministic Behavior (comp_req__utils__deterministic_behavior) - No code review record is linked. The implementation contradicts the requirement EncodeBase64/DecodeBase64 use heap-allocated std::string/std::vector. Requirement should be removed or rewritten.

Issue #395

REQ_09_01

Do the requirements that define a safety mechanism specify 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.

YES

In the scope of this inspection are no requirements defining a safety mechanism.

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).

NO

score/utils/meyer_singleton/ (MeyerSingleton) is part of the utils component but has no component requirement. Scoped Operation Management (comp_req__utils__scoped_operation) is satisfied_by Utils (comp__baselibs_utils) but its implementation is in score/scope_exit/, not score/utils/. Component boundary needs clarification.

Issue #395

Attention

The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component requirements in scope.

Note: If a Review ID is not applicable for your requirement, then state “”n/a” in status and comment accordingly in remarks.

The following requirements in “valid” state and with “inspected” tag set are in the scope of this inspection:

ID

Status

Tags

comp_req__utils__base64

valid

inspected; baselibs; utils

comp_req__utils__deterministic_behavior

valid

inspected; baselibs; utils

comp_req__utils__scoped_operation

valid

inspected; baselibs; utils

And also the following AoUs in “valid” state and with “inspected” tag set (for these please answer the questions above as if the AoUs are requirements, except question REQ_03_01):

No needs passed the filters