Skip to content

add example for auto generated module verification report - #166

Open
RolandJentschETAS wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
improvement_generated_mod_verification_report
Open

add example for auto generated module verification report#166
RolandJentschETAS wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
improvement_generated_mod_verification_report

Conversation

@RolandJentschETAS

@RolandJentschETAS RolandJentschETAS commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This pull request updates the documentation examples and module verification report templates to improve clarity, completeness, and traceability between logical interfaces and their implementing components. The changes provide more detailed descriptions of logical interfaces, their mapping to components and sub-components, and clarify the structure and content of module verification reports.

Documentation and Example Improvements:

That fixes "FIXME Warnings"

  • Added detailed descriptions for each logical interface in the feature architecture example, specifying their purpose and implementation by sub-components. [1] [2] [3]
  • Enhanced component and sub-component documentation to clearly state which logical interfaces they implement and their roles in the architecture. [1] [2] [3]
  • Updated module view sections to explicitly describe the mapping of logical interfaces to implementing components and sub-components, improving traceability and understanding. [1] [2]

Module Verification Report Template Enhancements:

  • Refined instructions and provided a clear template for module verification report generation, including guidance on directive usage, naming conventions, and report content.
  • Improved structure and formatting of the verification report content sections for better readability and consistency, including expanded details on coverage, architecture, and test results. [1] [2]

Other Minor Updates:

  • Added section headings and clarifications to improve the logical flow and usability of the architecture modeling example.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

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

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output
[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.7.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: edc59155-289c-4d36-9ab6-4f93685374e3
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (26 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (86 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (143 packages loaded, 1159 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (162 packages loaded, 2844 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (165 packages loaded, 7046 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (165 packages loaded, 8289 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (171 packages loaded, 8432 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (171 packages loaded, 8432 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (175 packages loaded, 10437 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (175 packages loaded, 10437 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (176 packages loaded, 12016 targets configured).
[7 / 16] Creating runfiles tree bazel-out/k8-opt-exec-ST-d57f47055a04/bin/external/score_tooling+/dash/tool/formatters/dash_format_converter.runfiles [for tool]; 0s local ... (3 actions, 2 running)
INFO: From Generating Dash formatted dependency file ...:
INFO: Successfully converted 2 packages from Cargo.lock to bazel-out/k8-fastbuild/bin/formatted.txt
[14 / 16] [Prepa] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar
[15 / 16] Building license.check.license_check.jar (); 0s disk-cache, multiplex-worker
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 199.226s, Critical Path: 2.58s
INFO: 16 processes: 12 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 16 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Documentation preview for this pull request is available at:
pr-166: https://eclipse-score.github.io/module_template/pr-166/

Comment thread MODULE.bazel
# tooling
bazel_dep(name = "score_tooling", version = "1.2.0", dev_dependency = True)
bazel_dep(name = "aspect_rules_lint", version = "1.10.2", dev_dependency = True)
bazel_dep(name = "aspect_rules_lint", version = "2.3.0", dev_dependency = True)

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.

why touch aspect rules?

@RolandJentschETAS RolandJentschETAS Sep 1, 2026

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.

There was a warning regards to that... If I made a PR I can fix that together.

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.

@copilot which module updated aspect_rules_lint?

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.

aspect_rules_lint was set directly by this template’s MODULE.bazel in 1dd74ec (bazel_dep(..., version = "2.3.0")). The resolved lockfile also shows aspect_tools_telemetry 0.2.8 requesting 2.3.0; no separate module update caused it.

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.

@copilot yeah, but this was done only to resolve a warning. So what other module did the update?

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.

It was score_bazel_cpp_toolchains 1.0.3. Its MODULE.bazel declares aspect_rules_lint 2.3.0 (alongside score_tooling 1.1.2), while score_tooling 1.2.0 itself requests 1.5.3.

Comment thread docs/verification_report/module_verification_report.rst Outdated
Co-authored-by: Alexander Lanin <Alexander.Lanin@etas.com>
Signed-off-by: RolandJentschETAS <135332348+RolandJentschETAS@users.noreply.github.com>
Comment on lines +21 to +27
:id: doc__mod_temp_verification_report
:status: draft
:version: 1
:safety: ASIL_B
:security: NO
:realizes: wp__verification_module_ver_report
:tags: template

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.

Does this even work with this formating?

@RolandJentschETAS RolandJentschETAS Sep 1, 2026

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.

Comment on lines +53 to +56

The verification report is generated automatically by the codeblock above by the tools and contains all the needed information for the module verification. The report is based on the module verification plan and covers all the components of the module.

The generated report should contain the following parts:

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.

Should we mention / link here to the need template that actually builds all this information and where changes can be made if something is missing / not right etc. ?
@AlexanderLanin @RolandJentschETAS

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.

Is this a need template ? I though thats a python script, what generates this.

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.

It's both, but the actual content comes from a need template it can be found here

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.

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 link into the source code sounds strange for me, but I can add the link if wanted.

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 mean that is where the template is defined.
That where is you have to change it.

@RolandJentschETAS RolandJentschETAS changed the title add example for auto generated module verifiaction report add example for auto generated module verification report Sep 1, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: No status

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants