Skip to content

Attifunel process req test description added#679

Open
attifunel wants to merge 5 commits into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
etas-contrib:attifunel_process_req_test_description_added
Open

Attifunel process req test description added#679
attifunel wants to merge 5 commits into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
etas-contrib:attifunel_process_req_test_description_added

Conversation

@attifunel

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Added requirement method with description

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Comment thread process/process_areas/verification/guidance/verification_methods.rst Outdated
Comment thread process/process_areas/verification/guidance/verification_methods.rst Outdated
Comment thread process/process_areas/verification/guidance/verification_methods.rst Outdated
be also considered: i.e. testing what happens when input x = C (if not already specified
in other requirements).

Note that requirement-based derived test case may also cover other techniques and derivation methods

@RolandJentschETAS RolandJentschETAS Jun 10, 2026

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.

Thats not an "may"! It depends on the ASIL Level according to the ISO Norm. For ASIL B the "Generation and analysis of equivalence classes" and "Analysis of boundary values" are highly recommended (what means mandatory). Fault injection is for ASIL C.

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 just wanted to underline that, incidentally, a req. bases test case could also already cover other techniques mentioned in this document. No reference to ISO 26262 requirements on testing here was meant. Agreed with P. Ahmann

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agreed with @attifunel as this is explained in other section.

@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.

Merging blocked due to #708

@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.

blocker resolved

@masc2023 masc2023 self-requested a review June 16, 2026 15:10
@masc2023 masc2023 dismissed their stale review June 16, 2026 15:11

blocker resolved

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants