Skip to content

Improvement: Process requirements alignment#99

Merged
aschemmel-tech merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
aschemmel-tech-process-req-table
Jul 10, 2025
Merged

Improvement: Process requirements alignment#99
aschemmel-tech merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
aschemmel-tech-process-req-table

Conversation

@aschemmel-tech

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech commented Jul 4, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Ref: Resolves: #98

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech marked this pull request as draft July 4, 2025 12:04
@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-process-req-table branch from 66a75f9 to b8f0d35 Compare July 4, 2025 12:05
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 4, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech marked this pull request as ready for review July 4, 2025 12:33
masc2023
masc2023 previously approved these changes Jul 4, 2025
View reviewed changes

@masc2023 masc2023 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Checked only CHM, PRM, TLM and general, gave some comments about draft and priority

Comment thread process/process_areas/change_management/guidance/change_management_reqs.rst
:id: gd_req__change__attr_affected_wp
:status: valid
:tags: chm, attribute, mandatory
:status: draft

@masc2023 masc2023 Jul 4, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why is that draft? I assume, that we have an impact analysis tool, which gives us affected elements and thus indirectly also the work products to enter her?

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Jul 7, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I set this to draft, because from the description I could not several questions: Shall it be manual/automated? As a (new) Feature Request is also a Change Request, what would I put here? ... So I think it could not be implemented without refinement.

Comment thread process/process_areas/change_management/guidance/change_management_reqs.rst
:id: gd_req__change__tool_impact_analysis
:status: valid
:tags: chm, check, tool
:tags: prio_3_automation, check, tool

@masc2023 masc2023 Jul 4, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why Prio 3, would assume that is good to show in audit, how we can do impact analysis with that?

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Jul 7, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As you say "is good" - but I would expect we can pass the audit without this. And also expect significant effort if we cannot take over an existing tool.

PandaeDo
PandaeDo reviewed Jul 7, 2025
View reviewed changes

@PandaeDo PandaeDo left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fine for me.

Comment thread process/process_areas/safety_analysis/guidance/safety_analysis_process_reqs.rst Outdated
MaximilianSoerenPollak
MaximilianSoerenPollak reviewed Jul 7, 2025
View reviewed changes

@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had some questions / comments

Comment thread process/general_concepts/score_review_concept.rst Outdated
Comment thread process/general_concepts/score_review_concept.rst Outdated
Comment thread process/general_concepts/score_review_concept.rst
Comment thread process/process_areas/architecture_design/guidance/architecture_process_reqs.rst
Comment thread process/process_areas/configuration_management/guidance/process_req.rst
Comment thread process/process_areas/requirements_engineering/guidance/requirements_process_reqs.rst
Comment thread process/process_areas/requirements_engineering/guidance/requirements_process_reqs.rst Outdated
Comment thread process/process_areas/requirements_engineering/guidance/requirements_process_reqs.rst Outdated
Comment thread process/process_areas/safety_analysis/guidance/safety_analysis_process_reqs.rst Outdated
Comment thread process/process_areas/verification/guidance/verification_templates.rst
@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-process-req-table branch from b8f0d35 to 5c0c0e9 Compare July 8, 2025 06:31
@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-process-req-table branch from 9f29519 to 76f5db9 Compare July 8, 2025 08:37
hoe-jo
hoe-jo reviewed Jul 9, 2025
View reviewed changes

@hoe-jo hoe-jo left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

MaximilianSoerenPollak
MaximilianSoerenPollak approved these changes Jul 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks okay from tooling team side.

kroehnd
kroehnd approved these changes Jul 10, 2025
View reviewed changes

@kroehnd kroehnd left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech merged commit 5bce5ca into main Jul 10, 2025
5 checks passed
@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech deleted the aschemmel-tech-process-req-table branch July 10, 2025 12:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@hoe-jo hoe-jo hoe-jo left review comments
@PandaeDo PandaeDo PandaeDo left review comments
@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak approved these changes
@PhilipPartsch PhilipPartsch PhilipPartsch approved these changes
@masc2023 masc2023 masc2023 left review comments
+1 more reviewer
@kroehnd kroehnd kroehnd approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Req Eng: Tool Requirements Implemented

7 participants

@aschemmel-tech @MaximilianSoerenPollak @PhilipPartsch @masc2023 @hoe-jo @PandaeDo @kroehnd