Launch Manager Requirements Inspection Checklist		status: draft security: YES safety: ASIL_B
version: 2 realizes: wp__requirements_inspect
doc__launch_manager_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:

• content responsible (author): <contributor/committer explicitly named here, who is the main author, as can be seen in config mgt tooling>

• reviewer: <contributor/committer explicitly named here, who is the main content reviewer, must be different from content responsible>

• moderator: <committer explicitly named here, who is is the safety manager, security manager or quality manager initiating the inspection>

• test expert: <one of the reviewers explicitly named here, to cover REQ_08_01 as described>

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 21 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”.
REQ_02_01	Is the requirement description comprehensible ?	If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?).
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).

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_inspected” state are in the scope of this inspection:

ID	Status	Tags
comp_req__launch_man__alive_failure	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__aslr_support	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__comp_activate_tout	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_comp_failure_switch	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__failure_detect	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_comp_failed_esc	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__check_dependency_exec	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__define_swc_dependencies	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__retries_configurable	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__time_to_wait_config	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__dependency_visu	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__modular_config_support	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__conf_of_comp_ready_cond	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__offline_config_valid	invalid	unclear; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__stop_order_spec	invalid	unclear; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__runmask_support	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__cwd_support	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__stop_process_dependents	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__dep_based_startup_order	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__drop_supervsion	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_fallback_failed_esc	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__fast_shutdown_support	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__fd_inheritance	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__process_input_output	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__central_default_defines	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__process_launch_args	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__consistent_dependencies	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__lm_ext_watchdog_cfg	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__lm_ext_watchdog_notify	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__lm_ext_wdg_failed_test	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__launcher_exit_shutdown	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__launch_parallel	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__start_named_run_target	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__terminal_support	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__lazy_check	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__dag_logging_controlif	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__slog2_logging	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__process_logging_support	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__log_timestamp	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__monitoring_processes	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__multi_start_support	invalid	unclear; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__secpol_non_root	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__launch_manager_shutdown	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__capability_support	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__detach_parent_process	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__launch_priority_support	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__process_state_comm	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__uid_gid_support	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__rc_file_state	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__rc_lifecycle	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__rc_os_state	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_rt_cancel_trans	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_comp_reactivate	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_comp_replace	invalid	unclear; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_comp_stop	invalid	unclear; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_comp_switch_rt	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_comp_fallback	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_rt_switch_rt	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_rt_sm_notify	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__process_rlimit_support	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__rt_activate_tout	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__ra_rt_failed_esc	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__rt_comp_dep	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__rt_rt_dep	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__runtime_config_compat	invalid	not_planned; lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__scheduling_policy	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__support_secpol_type	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__shutdown_signal	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__std_handle_redir	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__configurable_timeout	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__supplementary_groups	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager
comp_req__launch_man__switch_run_targets	valid	lifecycle; launch_manager

And also the following AoUs in “valid_inspected” state (for these please answer the questions above as if the AoUs are requirements, except question REQ_03_01):

No needs passed the filters