docs: set satisfied_by on feature and component requirements - #3129
Merged
Conversation
antonkri
requested review from
a team,
4og,
FScholPer,
LittleHuba,
anmittag,
arsibo,
johannes-esr,
michaelsaborov,
qor-lb and
ramceb
as code owners
July 28, 2026 07:25
github-project-automation
Bot
added this to
TLC - Technical Lead Circle and S-CORE Roadmap
antonkri
requested review from
pawelrutkaq,
rmaddikery and
umaucher
as code owners
July 28, 2026 07:25
antonkri
marked this pull request as draft
July 28, 2026 07:25
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
masc2023
reviewed
Jul 28, 2026
| .. feat:: Gen-AI | ||
| :id: feat__gen_ai | ||
| :security: NO | ||
| :safety: QM |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ASIL_B, as some stakeholder and Feature Requirements are ASIL_B
Set the satisfied_by link on all feat_req/comp_req that were missing it, following the existing convention (feat_req -> feat__<feature>[version==1], comp_req -> comp__<component>[version==1]). - 37 feat_req in existing features (lifecycle, orchestration) - 118 feat_req in 8 features for which a parent feat:: need was created (feat__ai_platform, feat__gen_ai, feat__code_generation, feat__config_mgmt, feat__diagnostics, feat__daal, feat__security_crypto, feat__time) - 63 lifecycle comp_req -> comp__lifecycle_launch_manager - migrated comp_req__lifecycle__launch from belongs_to to satisfied_by The 8 new feat:: needs are minimal (analogous to feat__feo/feat__os, without includes) since the underlying feature-request documents do not yet define logic_arc_int interfaces. Result: 0 feat_req and 0 comp_req remain without satisfied_by. Validated with `bazel build //:docs` (success).
antonkri
force-pushed
the
feat/set-satisfied-by-requirements
branch
from
July 28, 2026 07:56
f449b8b to
e2285e6
Compare
antonkri
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 28, 2026 08:03
anmittag
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2026
anmittag
left a comment
anmittag
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The changes are all ok, except the ASIL B comment
Q: DAAL: outlook for 2.0.0 ok, but i do not see it. do we really want to keep it "in"?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Set the satisfied_by link on all feat_req/comp_req that were missing it, following the existing convention (feat_req -> feat__[version==1], comp_req -> comp__[version==1]).
The 8 new feat:: needs are minimal (analogous to feat__feo/feat__os, without includes) since the underlying feature-request documents do not yet define logic_arc_int interfaces.
Result: 0 feat_req and 0 comp_req remain without satisfied_by. Validated with
bazel build //:docs(success).