diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/flatbuffers/docs/index.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/flatbuffers/docs/index.rst index 9b970e7e4b..24a3421004 100644 --- a/docs/baselibs/components/flatbuffers/docs/index.rst +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/flatbuffers/docs/index.rst @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ # ******************************************************************************* FlatBuffers-Library -=================== +################### .. document:: FlatBuffers-Library :id: doc__flatbuffers diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/json/docs/index.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/json/docs/index.rst index 2cd9198183..17dc354af2 100644 --- a/docs/baselibs/components/json/docs/index.rst +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/json/docs/index.rst @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ # ******************************************************************************* JSON-Library -============ +############ .. document:: JSON-Library :id: doc__json diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/architecture/chklst_arc_inspection.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/architecture/chklst_arc_inspection.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..08c8b65016 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/architecture/chklst_arc_inspection.rst @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + + +.. document:: Log Frontend Architecture Inspection Checklist + :id: doc__log_arc_inspection + :status: draft + :version: 1 + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: YES + :realizes: wp__sw_arch_verification + +Architecture Inspection Checklist +================================= + +Purpose +------- + +The purpose of the software architecture checklist is to ensure that the design meets the criteria and quality as +defined per project processes and guidelines for feature and component architectural design elements. +It helps to check the compliance with requirements, identify errors or inconsistencies, and ensure adherence to best +practices. +The checklist guides evaluation of the architecture design, identifies potential problems, and aids in +communication and documentation of architectural decisions to stakeholders. + +Conduct +------- + +As described in the concept :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` the following "inspection roles" are expected to be filled: + +- content responsible (author): +- reviewer: +- moderator: + +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:: Architecture Design Review Checklist + :header-rows: 1 + + * - Review Id + - Acceptance criteria + - Guidance + - passed + - Remarks + - Issue link + * - ARC_01_01 + - Is the traceability from software architectural elements to requirements, and other level architectural elements (e.g. component to interface) established according to the "Relations between the architectural elements" as described in :need:`doc_concept__arch_process`? + - Trace should be checked automatically by tool support in the future. Will be removed from the checklist once the requirement (:need:`Correlations of the architectural building blocks `) is implemented. Refer to `Tool Requirements `_ for the current status. + - + - + - + * - ARC_01_02 + - Does the software architecture design consider all the requirements allocated or belonging to the architectural element, including functional, non-functional, safety, and security requirements and all related design decisions? + - Check if all requirements allocated or belonging to the architectural element are considered in the design. This includes functional requirements (e.g. functional safety requirements), non-functional requirements (e.g. performance, reliability), and security requirements (e.g. confidentiality, integrity). Additionally, ensure that all related design decisions are taken into account and documented in the architectural design. + - + - + - + * - ARC_01_03 + - If the architectural element is related to any supplier manuals (incl. safety and security) + are the relevant parts covered? + - If the architecture makes use of supplied elements, their manuals (like safety) have to be considered (i.e. its provided functionality matches the expectation and assumptions are fulfilled). Note that in case of safety component this means that assumed Technical Safety Requirements and AoUs of the safety manual are covered. + - + - + - + * - ARC_01_04 + - Is the architectural element traceable to the lower level artifacts as defined by the workproduct traceability? + - Will be removed from checklist once the requirement (:need:`Correlations of the architectural building blocks `) is implemented by automated tool check. See `Tool Requirements `_. + Details of possible linking can be depicted from the traceability concept. + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_01 + - Is the software architecture design compliant with the (overall) feature architecture? + - On component level check against the feature architecture, on feature level check other features with common components used. + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_02 + - Is appropriate and comprehensible operation/interface naming present in the architectural design? + - Check :need:`gd_guidl__arch_design` + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_03 + - Are correctness of data flow and control flow within the architectural elements considered? + - E.g. examine definitions, transformations, integrity, and interaction of data; check error handling, data + exchange between elements, correct response to inputs and documented decision making. + Note: consistency is ensured by the process/tooling, by defining each interface only once. + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_04 + - Are the interfaces between the software architectural element and other architectural elements well-defined? + - Check if the interface reacts on non-defined behaviour or errors; can established protocols be used; are the + interfaces for inputs, outputs, error codes documented; is loose coupling considered and only limited exposure; + can unit or integration test be written against the interface; data amount transferred; no sensitive data + exposure; + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_05 + - Does the software architectural element consider the timing constraints (from the parent requirement)? + - If there are hard requirements on the timing a programming time estimation should be performed and also + deadline supervision considered. + - + - + - + * - ARC_02_06 + - Is the documentation of the software architectural element, including textual and graphical descriptions + (e.g., UML diagrams), comprehensible and complete? + - Use of semi-formal notation is expected for architectural elements with an allocated ASIL level. + Is the architecture template correctly filled? + - + - + - + * - ARC_03_01 + - Is the architectural element modular and encapsulated? + - Check e.g. that only minimal interfaces are used. Design should be object oriented. Interfaces and interactions are clearly defined. Usage of access types (private, protected) properly set. Limited global variables. + - + - + - + * - ARC_03_02 + - Is the suitability of the software architecture for future modifications and maintainability considered? + - Check for e.g. loose coupling, separation of concerns, high cohesion, versioning strategy for interfaces, + decision records, use of established design patterns. + - + - + - + * - ARC_03_03 + - Are simplicity and avoidance of unnecessary complexity present in the software architecture and the component? + - Indicators for complexity are: number of use cases (corresponding to dynamic diagrams) + allocated to single design element, number of interfaces and operations in an interface, + function parameters, global variables, complex types, limited comprehensibility. + The belonging code metrics should be checked. + + Notes: + + If the "number of use cases" or "number of interfaces" above exceeds "3" or "number of function parameters" exceeds "5" or the "number of operations" exceeds "20" or global variables are used, a design rationale is mandatory. + + See also if component classification :need:`gd_temp__component_classification` as measure is present. + + - + - + - + * - ARC_03_04 + - Is the software architecture design following best practices and design principles? + - Refer to architectural guidelines and recommendations within the project documentation. + - + - + - + * - ARC_04_03 + - If your software architectural design of the component includes processes and tasks, are their scheduling policies and priorities (at least the needed relation one to another) defined to ensure that timing requirements are met? Please note, that the particular priorities or priority ranges will be probably defined by the project handbook or the software development plan. + + Note: see :need:`std_req__iso26262__software_743` + - Give a reason for these scheduling policies and priorities or explain why not needed. + - + - + - + + +.. attention:: + The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component architecture in scope. + +Note: If a Review ID is not applicable for your architecture, then state ""n/a" in status and comment accordingly in remarks. + +The following static views in "valid" state and with "inspected" tag set are in the scope of this inspection: + +.. needtable:: + :filter: "log" in docname and "architecture" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid" + :style: table + :types: comp_arc_sta + :tags: log + :columns: id;status;tags + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title + +and the following dynamic views: + +.. needtable:: + :filter: "log" in docname and "architecture" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid" + :style: table + :types: comp_arc_dyn + :tags: log + :columns: id;status;tags + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/architecture/component_architecture.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/architecture/component_architecture.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a11aaf9f1b --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/architecture/component_architecture.rst @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + + +Component Architecture Documentation +==================================== + +.. document:: Log Frontend Architecture + :id: doc__log_architecture + :status: draft + :version: 1 + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: NO + :realizes: wp__component_arch + +Overview +-------- + + + +Requirements Linked to Component Architecture +--------------------------------------------- + +see "fulfills" links of architecture needs + +Description +----------- + + + + + + + +Rationale Behind Architecture Decomposition +******************************************* + +due to low complexity, no need for further decomposition + +Static Architecture +------------------- + +The components are designed to cover the expectations from the feature architecture +(i.e. if already exists a definition it should be taken over and enriched). + +A component can optional also consist of lower level components to further structure the architecture. The component and its static views can also optionally use interfaces provided by other components. + +.. comp:: Log Frontend + :id: comp__log + :security: YES + :safety: ASIL_B + :status: valid + :version: 1 + :belongs_to: feat__logging + +.. comp_arc_sta:: Log Frontend (Static View) + :id: comp_arc_sta__log__static_view + :security: YES + :safety: ASIL_B + :status: valid + :version: 1 + :belongs_to: comp__log + :fulfils: comp_req__log__compat_languages + + .. needarch:: + :scale: 50 + :align: center + + {{ draw_component(need(), needs) }} + +Dynamic Architecture +-------------------- + +not needed, just routing of commands and answers + +Interfaces +---------- + +.. code-block:: rst + + .. real_arc_int:: + :id: real_arc_int__<component>__<Title> + :security: <YES|NO> + :safety: <QM|ASIL_B> + :fulfils: <link to component requirement id> + :language: cpp diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/architecture/index.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/architecture/index.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..b416ecbacb --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/architecture/index.rst @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + + +Component Architecture +====================== + +.. toctree:: + + component_architecture + chklst_arc_inspection diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..c15f607224 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + +.. document:: log_frontend Implementation Inspection Checklist + :id: doc__log_impl_inspection + :status: draft + :version: 1 + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: YES + :realizes: wp__sw_implementation_inspection + +Implementation Inspection Checklist +=================================== + +Purpose +------- + +The purpose of this checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during implementation, +i.e. in the detailed design and the source code of the units. + +The checklist shall be agnostic to which programming language is used. Differences shall be treated +by linking to C++ or Rust specific documentation. + +Conduct +------- + +As described in the concept :need:`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> + +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:: Implementation Checklist + :header-rows: 1 + :widths: 10,30,50,6,6,8 + + * - Review ID + - Acceptance Criteria + - Guidance + - Passed + - Remarks + - Issue link + * - IMPL_01_01 + - Is the design according to guidelines? + - see :need:`gd_temp__detailed_design` and :need:`doc_concept__imp_concept` + (e.g. are the views done with the proposed UML diagrams) + - + - + - + * - IMPL_01_02 + - Is the implementation according to specification? + - Check if the linked component requirements are fulfilled + and detailed design also matches architecture description. + - + - + - + * - IMPL_01_03 + - Are the design decisions and constraints documented? + - Check also for plausibility of these. + - + - + - + * - IMPL_01_04 + - Are all external libraries used by the component specified in the detailed design? + - Check the automated dependency analysis. + Also make sure ASIL rated units also only use ASIL rated libraries. + - + - + - + * - IMPL_02_01 + - Are the static and dynamic code analysis reports verified for violations? + - All violations in ASIL related code must be justified. This includes the checks of coding guidelines. + - + - + - + * - IMPL_02_02 + - Do manual checks, that are derived from the coding guideline, find no safety critical error? + - Check this for the programming language used (e.g. C++ <link_to_checks_list>, Rust <link_to_checks_list>) + - + - + - + * - IMPL_03_01 + - Do the UID of the interface in component documentation match the implemented interface names of the unit? + - Compare interface UIDs (which contains the interface name) in component architecture/detailed design documentation + with public interfaces in source code (e.g. API headers, traits, public types/functions). + - + - + - + * - IMPL_03_02 + - Are detailed design and source code consistent and is the respective traceability established ? + - Check if available static and dynamic design diagrams and the textual descriptions match the code + (e.g. naming of interfaces, units, functions/operations/messages, data types). + Check if the folder/file names of the units and its source code matches the intended functionality. + For example if a unit is named "communication" it should not contain code for "data processing". + - + - + - diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/detailed_design/index.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/detailed_design/index.rst index d44f6aae9b..97e2eee6b3 100644 --- a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/detailed_design/index.rst +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/detailed_design/index.rst @@ -32,3 +32,4 @@ Detailed Design rust_bridge_design.rst log_frontend_design.rst + chklst_impl_inspection.rst diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/index.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/index.rst index 196ab85008..3ee1324dd0 100644 --- a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/index.rst +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/index.rst @@ -18,6 +18,9 @@ log_frontend .. toctree:: :maxdepth: 1 - assumptions_of_use/index.rst - detailed_design/index.rst - requirements/index.rst + requirements/index + architecture/index + safety_analysis/fmea + safety_analysis/dfa + safety_analysis/aou_requirements + detailed_design/index diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..d39ed2589b --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + + +.. document:: log_frontend Requirements Inspection Checklist + :id: doc__log_req_inspection + :status: draft + :version: 1 + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: YES + :realizes: wp__requirements_inspect + +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 :need:`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 :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` for further information about reviews in general and inspection in particular. + +.. list-table:: Component Requirement Inspection Checklist + :header-rows: 1 + :widths: 10,30,50,6,6,8 + + * - Review ID + - Acceptance Criteria + - Guidance + - Passed + - Remarks + - Issue link + * - REQ_01_01 + - Is the requirement formulation template used? + - see :need:`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 :need:`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 :need:`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 :need:`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 :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 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" state and with "inspected" tag set are in the scope of this inspection: + +.. needtable:: + :filter: docname is not None and "mw_log" in docname and "requirements" in docname and status == "valid" + :style: table + :types: comp_req + :columns: id;status;tags + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title + +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): + +.. needtable:: + :filter: docname is not None and "mw_log" in docname and "safety_analysis" in docname and status == "valid" + :style: table + :types: aou_req + :columns: id;status;tags + :colwidths: 25,25,25 + :sort: title diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/requirements/index.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/requirements/index.rst index 9600b8b05a..4545a2f9c8 100644 --- a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/requirements/index.rst +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/requirements/index.rst @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ Configuration These are hard-coded in the library. -.. comp_req:: Logging Configuration Precedence +.. comp_req:: Logging Configuration Precedence :id: comp_req__log__cfg_precedence :status: valid :derived_from: feat_req__logging__config_fallback[version==1] @@ -316,3 +316,8 @@ Compatibility :version: 1 ``mw::log`` shall provide a logging API for C++ and Rust. + +.. toctree:: + :maxdepth: 1 + + chklst_req_inspection diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/assumptions_of_use/index.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/safety_analysis/aou_requirements.rst similarity index 98% rename from docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/assumptions_of_use/index.rst rename to docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/safety_analysis/aou_requirements.rst index fd1dbdb659..e4d0baef6c 100644 --- a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/assumptions_of_use/index.rst +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/safety_analysis/aou_requirements.rst @@ -197,3 +197,7 @@ Assumptions of Use This requirement shall be verified for each assigned application. The whole dependency tree of **all** included libraries shall be also verified on this requirement in the application use case and by application developers. + + +.. needextend:: is_external == False and "__log__" in id + :+tags: logging diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/safety_analysis/dfa.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/safety_analysis/dfa.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a79defeb46 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/safety_analysis/dfa.rst @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + + +DFA (Dependent Failure Analysis) +================================ + +.. document:: log_frontend DFA + :id: doc__log_dfa + :status: draft + :version: 1 + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: NO + :realizes: wp__sw_component_dfa + + +Dependent Failure Initiators +---------------------------- + +.. code-block:: rst + + .. comp_saf_dfa:: <Title> + :violates: <Component architecture> + :id: comp_saf_dfa__<Component>__<Element descriptor> + :failure_id: <ID from DFA failure initiators :need:`gd_guidl__dfa_failure_initiators`> + :failure_effect: "description of failure effect of the failure initiator on the element" + :mitigated_by: <ID from Component Requirement | ID from AoU Component Requirement> + :mitigation_issue: <ID from Issue Tracker> + :sufficient: <yes|no> + :status: <valid|invalid> + +.. note:: Argument is inside the 'content'. Therefore content is mandatory. + +.. attention:: + The above directive must be updated according to your component DFA. + + - The above "code-block" directive must be updated + - Fill in all the needed information in the <brackets> diff --git a/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/safety_analysis/fmea.rst b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/safety_analysis/fmea.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ca509dabbc --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/baselibs/components/mw_log/docs/safety_analysis/fmea.rst @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ +.. + # ******************************************************************************* + # Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation + # + # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional + # information regarding copyright ownership. + # + # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the + # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at + # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + # + # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 + # ******************************************************************************* + + +FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) +========================================= + +.. document:: log_frontend FMEA + :id: doc__log_fmea + :status: draft + :version: 1 + :safety: ASIL_B + :security: NO + :realizes: wp__sw_component_fmea + + +Failure Mode List +----------------- + +.. list-table:: Fault Models for sequence diagrams + :header-rows: 1 + :widths: 10,20,10,20 + + * - ID + - Failure Mode + - Applicability + - Rationale + * - MF_01_01 + - message is not received (is a subset/more precise description of MF_01_05) + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - MF_01_02 + - message received too late (only relevant if delay is a realistic fault) + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - MF_01_03 + - message received too early (usually not a problem) + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - MF_01_04 + - message not received correctly by all recipients (different messages or messages partly lost). Only relevant if the same message goes to multiple recipients. + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - MF_01_05 + - message is corrupted + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - MF_01_06 + - message is not sent + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - MF_01_07 + - message is unintended sent + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - CO_01_01 + - minimum constraint boundary is violated + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - CO_01_02 + - maximum constraint boundary is violated + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - EX_01_01 + - Process calculates wrong result(s) (is a subset/more precise description of MF_01_05 or MF_01_04). This failure mode is related to the analysis if e.g. internal safety mechanisms are required (level 2 function, plausibility check of the output, …) because of the size / complexity of the feature. + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - EX_01_02 + - processing too slow (only relevant if timing is considered) + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - EX_01_03 + - processing too fast (only relevant if timing is considered) + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - EX_01_04 + - loss of execution + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - EX_01_05 + - processing changes to arbitrary process + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + * - EX_01_06 + - processing is not complete (infinite loop) + - <yes | no> + - <Rationale if not applicable, otherwise link to filled out FMEA> + +FMEA +---- +For all identified applicable failure initiators, the FMEA is performed in the following section. + +.. code-block:: rst + + .. comp_saf_fmea:: <Title> + :violates: <Component architecture> + :id: comp_saf_fmea__<Component>__<Element descriptor> + :fault_id: <ID from fault model :need:`gd_guidl__fault_models`> + :failure_effect: "description of failure effect of the fault model on the element" + :mitigated_by: <ID from Component Requirement | ID from AoU Component Requirement> + :mitigation_issue: <ID from Issue Tracker> + :sufficient: <yes|no> + :status: <valid|invalid> + + .. note:: argument is inside the 'content'. Therefore content is mandatory + +.. attention:: + The above directive must be updated according to your component FMEA. + + - The above "code-block" directive must be updated + - Fill in all the needed information in the <brackets> diff --git a/docs/module/manuals/safety_manual.rst b/docs/module/manuals/safety_manual.rst index 08528361a2..9832f69b03 100644 --- a/docs/module/manuals/safety_manual.rst +++ b/docs/module/manuals/safety_manual.rst @@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ Safety Manual ============= -.. note:: Document header .. document:: Baselibs Safety Manual :id: doc__baselibs_safety_manual @@ -29,7 +28,10 @@ Safety Manual Introduction/Scope ------------------ -This is the safety manual for baselibs module which is a collection of several utilities of common use. +This is the safety manual for ``baselibs`` module which is a collection of several utilities of common use. + +The component :need:`comp__log` is deployed in the baselibs repository. +It is not part of the ``baselibs`` feature but of the ``logging`` feature, so it is covered in the logging safety manual. Assumed Platform Safety Requirements ------------------------------------ diff --git a/docs/module/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst b/docs/module/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst index afbe2dd7b8..e4df557245 100644 --- a/docs/module/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst +++ b/docs/module/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.rst @@ -381,6 +381,72 @@ Component filesystem Work products List - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_guidl__verification_guide')` - component integration not needed (no sub-components and units are independent) +Component log_frontend Work products List +----------------------------------------- + +.. list-table:: Component log_frontend Work products + :header-rows: 1 + + * - Work product Id + - Link to process + - Process status + - Link to WP + + * - :need:`wp__requirements_comp` + - :need:`gd_temp__req_comp_req` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_temp__req_comp_req')` + - :need:`doc__log_requirements` + + * - :need:`wp__requirements_comp_aou` + - :need:`gd_temp__req_aou_req` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_temp__req_aou_req')` + - :need:`doc__log_assumptions_of_use` + + * - :need:`wp__requirements_inspect` + - :need:`gd_chklst__req_inspection` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_chklst__req_inspection')` + - :need:`doc__log_req_inspection` + + * - :need:`wp__component_arch` + - :need:`gd_temp__arch_comp` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_temp__arch_comp')` + - :need:`doc__log_architecture` + + * - :need:`wp__sw_arch_verification` + - :need:`gd_chklst__arch_inspection_checklist` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_chklst__arch_inspection_checklist')` + - :need:`doc__log_arc_inspection` + + * - :need:`wp__sw_component_fmea` + - :need:`gd_temp__comp_saf_fmea` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_temp__comp_saf_fmea')` + - :need:`doc__log_fmea` + + * - :need:`wp__sw_component_dfa` + - :need:`gd_temp__comp_saf_dfa` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_temp__comp_saf_dfa')` + - :need:`doc__log_dfa` + + * - :need:`wp__sw_implementation` + - :need:`gd_guidl__implementation` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_guidl__implementation')` + - `log .h/.cpp <https://github.com/eclipse-score/baselibs/tree/main/score/mw/log>`_, :need:`doc__log_detailed_design` + + * - :need:`wp__verification_sw_unit_test` + - :need:`gd_guidl__verification_guide` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_guidl__verification_guide')` + - `log/test.cpp <https://github.com/eclipse-score/baselibs/tree/main/score/mw/log>`_ + + * - :need:`wp__sw_implementation_inspection` + - :need:`gd_chklst__impl_inspection_checklist` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_chklst__impl_inspection_checklist')` + - :need:`doc__log_impl_inspection` + + * - :need:`wp__verification_comp_int_test` + - :need:`gd_guidl__verification_guide` + - :ndf:`copy('status', need_id='gd_guidl__verification_guide')` + - component integration not needed - done in the frame of logging module + Component result Work products List -----------------------------------