inspection record need type by FScholPer · Pull Request #661 · eclipse-score/docs-as-code

FScholPer · 2026-07-23T14:55:25Z

Relates to #611

Split out of #612 (inspection part). The verification-report part is in a separate PR.

📌 Description

Adds a machine-readable module inspection record need type to the metamodel.

metamodel.yaml: new mod_insp need type (prefix: mod_insp__) classifying an inspection by inspection_type and inspection_state, recording checklist_ref/reviewers and optional moderator/approver/findings/date attributes; links belongs_to a mod and inspects the inspected artifacts, with optional contains/evidence/approved_by/supported_by. Adds the evidence (evidence/evidence_for) and inspects (inspects/inspected_by) extra links it depends on.
requirements.rst: new "Verification Evidence" section with tool_req__docs_inspection_record_need, plus the Verif row in the requirements overview table.
Tests: rst/options/test_options_inspection_record.rst covering a valid record and an invalid inspection_state value.

🚨 Impact Analysis

This change does not violate any tool requirements and is covered by existing tool requirements
This change does not violate any design decisions
Otherwise I have created a ticket for new tool qualification

✅ Checklist

Added/updated documentation for new or changed features
Added/updated tests to cover the changes
Followed project coding standards and guidelines

Frank Scholter Peres frank.scholter_peres@mercedes-benz.com, Mercedes-Benz Tech Innovation GmbH
Provider Information

github-actions · 2026-07-23T14:56:09Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //src:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 8323f82a-f528-4901-b4ad-40c14f646125
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: src
WARNING: Target pattern parsing failed.
ERROR: Skipping '//src:license-check': no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
ERROR: no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
INFO: Elapsed time: 6.382s
INFO: 0 processes.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
ERROR: Build failed. Not running target

github-actions · 2026-07-23T15:03:21Z

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

aschemmel-tech

Some questions on the usage in the inline comments

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-24T11:08:21Z

+      # req-Id: tool_req__docs_inspection_record_need
+      inspection_type: ^(requirements|architecture|implementation|traceability|safety_analysis|security_analysis|other)$
+      inspection_state: ^(planned|in_review|rework_required|approved)$
+      checklist_ref: ^.*$


in your example this links to a template (gd_temp), but why have this attribute? information can be derived already from "inspection_type"

Kept checklist_ref for now so the concrete checklist instance can be referenced explicitly, but happy to drop it if you prefer deriving it from inspection_type. I think also for versioning it would make sense

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-24T11:16:47Z


+  # Formal inspection evidence modeled as a first-class artifact.
+  # req-Id: tool_req__docs_inspection_record_need
+  mod_insp:


I do not fully understand how this will be used. My assumption based on the example in eclipse-score/persistency#330 is that it is a part of the verification report but has one instance per each inspection evidence. E.g. in baselibs this would be about ten records for requirements inspections (one per avery component). Comments given based on this assumption.

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-24T11:28:28Z

+      status: ^(valid|invalid)$
+      # req-Id: tool_req__docs_inspection_record_need
+      inspection_type: ^(requirements|architecture|implementation|traceability|safety_analysis|security_analysis|other)$
+      inspection_state: ^(planned|in_review|rework_required|approved)$


state "planned" is the same as having a checklist document in "draft" state, "in_review" would be as long as the PR to fill out the checklist is in draft/open, "rework_required" would mean checklist has a "NO", "approved" means all checkpoints are "YES". Expect this is filled out automatically?

I would say this is manual when human steps in means until rework_required. So what to change then?

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-24T11:37:14Z

+      findings_total: ^[0-9]+$
+      findings_open: ^[0-9]+$
+      pr_link: ^https://github\.com/[^/]+/[^/]+/pull/\d+$
+      correction_issue: ^https://github\.com/[^/]+/[^/]+/issues/\d+$


is it really needed here? can be seen in checklist (linked in below "evidence")

Removed correction_issue — it is reachable via the checklist linked under evidence.

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-24T11:39:44Z

+      findings_open: ^[0-9]+$
+      pr_link: ^https://github\.com/[^/]+/[^/]+/pull/\d+$
+      correction_issue: ^https://github\.com/[^/]+/[^/]+/issues/\d+$
+      inspection_date: ^[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}$


what do you use this for? I do not think you can judge from the date if it is still valid.

Removed inspection_date — agreed validity cannot be judged from the date.

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-24T11:42:52Z

+      inspects: ANY
+    optional_links:
+      # req-Id: tool_req__docs_inspection_record_need
+      contains: ANY


"contains" makes no sense in inspection record (at least if it is the same usage as in verification report). Or do you want to pack inspection records in inspection records?

Removed the contains optional link — nesting inspection records is not intended.

aschemmel-tech · 2026-07-24T11:44:01Z

+      supported_by: role
+    tags:
+      - inspection
+      - verification_evidence


it is not an evidence?

Removed the verification_evidence tag — kept only inspection.

Adds the mod_insp need type to the metamodel with evidence and inspects extra links, documents the tool requirement, and adds option tests. Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

FScholPer requested review from AlexanderLanin, MaximilianSoerenPollak, dcalavrezo-qorix and nradakovic as code owners July 23, 2026 14:55

github-project-automation Bot added this to INF - Infrastructure Community Jul 23, 2026

FScholPer mentioned this pull request Jul 23, 2026

Checklist and verification needs type draft #612

Closed

6 tasks

FScholPer changed the title ~~Add machine-readable module inspection record need type~~ inspection record need type Jul 23, 2026

aschemmel-tech requested changes Jul 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

FScholPer and others added 2 commits August 3, 2026 11:18

Add machine-readable module inspection record need type

ca18eff

Adds the mod_insp need type to the metamodel with evidence and inspects extra links, documents the tool requirement, and adds option tests. Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

Address review: slim down mod_insp inspection record attributes

91fc818

Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

FScholPer force-pushed the inspection_needs branch from 0a02514 to 91fc818 Compare August 3, 2026 11:20

FScholPer mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2026

Add module inspection report aggregator with completeness check #682

Open

6 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

FScholPer commented Jul 23, 2026

📌 Description

🚨 Impact Analysis

✅ Checklist

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

License Check Results

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 23, 2026

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FScholPer Aug 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

github-actions Bot commented Jul 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

FScholPer Aug 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading