Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

process: add testing community role #787

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

process: add testing community role #787

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

pahmann
Copy link
Contributor

@pahmann pahmann commented Mar 25, 2025

During the 3rd interim audit, the demand was formulated, that we need to have a verification specific role, which could be filled by the existing testing community. This is added by this PR.

closes: Improvement: Testing Community Role #777

@pahmann pahmann requested a review from aschemmel-tech March 25, 2025 11:16
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 25, 2025 •
edited
Loading

License Check Results

🚀 The license check preparation job ran successfully.

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output 
2025/03/25 12:00:02 Downloading https://releases.bazel.build/7.4.0/release/bazel-7.4.0-linux-x86_64...
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server and connecting to it...
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: docs
Loading: 1 packages loaded
Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (96 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (126 packages loaded, 783 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (139 packages loaded, 1604 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (144 packages loaded, 2465 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (144 packages loaded, 2465 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (147 packages loaded, 4487 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //docs:license.check.python (148 packages loaded, 4611 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //docs:license.check.python (149 packages loaded, 4736 targets configured).
[11 / 13] [Prepa] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java~/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //docs:license.check.python up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/docs/license.check.python
  bazel-bin/docs/license.check.python.jar
[13 / 13] no actions running
INFO: Elapsed time: 18.649s, Critical Path: 2.36s
INFO: 13 processes: 9 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 13 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/docs/license.check.python docs/formatted.txt -review -project automotive.score -repo https://github.com/eclipse-score/score -token otyhZ4eaRYK1tKLNNF-Y
[main] INFO Querying Eclipse Foundation for license data for 69 items.
[main] INFO Found 45 items.
[main] INFO Querying ClearlyDefined for license data for 25 items.
[main] INFO Found 25 items.
[main] INFO License information could not be automatically verified for the following content:
[main] INFO 
[main] INFO pypi/pypi/-/docutils/0.21.2
[main] INFO 
[main] INFO This content is either not correctly mapped by the system, or requires review.
[main] INFO A review is required for pypi/pypi/-/docutils/0.21.2.
[main] INFO A review request already exists https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/19880 .

@pahmann
process: add testing community role
508043c 
closes #777

Signed-off-by: Philipp Ahmann <Philipp.Ahmann@de.bosch.com>
@pahmann pahmann force-pushed the pahmann_roles_testing_team branch from 56d54c5 to 508043c Compare March 25, 2025 11:59
@pahmann pahmann requested review from masc2023, hoe-jo and PandaeDo March 25, 2025 12:02
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

PandaeDo
PandaeDo approved these changes Mar 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No findings

@pahmann pahmann linked an issue Mar 25, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
Improvement: Testing Community Role #777
Open
masc2023
masc2023 requested changes Mar 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
docs/process/roles/index.rst
@@ -162,4 +174,3 @@ SCORE cross functional teams
:contains: rl__module_lead, rl__safety_manager, rl__quality_manager, rl__security_manager, rl__contributor, rl__committer

The module team is responsible for all artefacts within the module SEooCs. Each module has only one responsible team but a team may also be responsible for several (small) modules.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

artefacts or artifacts, compare above

docs/process/process_areas/verification/verification_roles.rst
With focus on testability, requirements getting reviewed by:

* :need:`rl__testing_community`

The tool evaluation, verification and reporting is handled by:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is that not tool qualification here?

docs/process/roles/index.rst

The testing community members are responsible for the test case development from component to
platform level. They shall be included in any requirements reviews. They can also improve
independence argumentation when involved in the development of unit testing on safety critical
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe in this case consider testing community supportive for unit testing?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@masc2023 masc2023 masc2023 requested changes

@PandaeDo PandaeDo PandaeDo approved these changes

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Awaiting requested review from aschemmel-tech

@hoe-jo hoe-jo Awaiting requested review from hoe-jo

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Improvement: Testing Community Role
3 participants
@pahmann @masc2023 @PandaeDo