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Comment thread process/process_areas/verification/guidance/verification_methods.rst Outdated
Comment thread process/process_areas/verification/guidance/verification_methods.rst Outdated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 on lines +196 to +198
Note that requirement-based testing derivation is typically covered by other techniques
mentioned here, such as Boundary Values, Equivalence Classes, Fuzzy Testing, Interface
Testing and Fault Injection.

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.

Suggested change
Note that requirement-based testing derivation is typically covered by other techniques
mentioned here, such as Boundary Values, Equivalence Classes, Fuzzy Testing, Interface
Testing and Fault Injection.
Note that requirement-based testing derivation is typically covered by other techniques
and methods mentioned here, such as Boundary Values, Equivalence Classes, and Fuzzy Testing.

Interface testing is verification method, but according to the iso not a derivation technique. Same holds true for Fault injection.

@attifunel attifunel May 11, 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.

Mhmhm... I have this opinion that ISO 26262 makes a bit of mixed bag there by mixing "derivation methods" and "techniques". I wanted to stay generic speaking of "techniques" without derivation, but maybe this causes confusion?

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.

My point of concern is where it says typically covered by do you mean it gets extended by or enhanced by? With the current wording it sounds much more like being included in the other techniques.

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.

Changed to "Note that requirement-based dervied test case may also cover other techniques". Agree?

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.

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.

3 participants