Comp Req inspection - Bitmanipulation

Resolves: #2479

Author: aschemmel-tech

docs/modules/baselibs/bitmanipulation/docs/index.rst

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ bitmanipulation
    :hidden:
 
    requirements/index.rst
+   requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst
    architecture/index.rst
    safety_analysis/fmea.rst
    safety_analysis/dfa.rst

docs/modules/baselibs/bitmanipulation/docs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+..
+   # *******************************************************************************
+   # Copyright (c) 2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation
+   #
+   # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional
+   # information regarding copyright ownership.
+   #
+   # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the
+   # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at
+   # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+   #
+   # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
+   # *******************************************************************************
+
+
+.. document:: Bitmanipulation Requirements Inspection Checklist
+   :id: doc__bitmanipulation_req_inspection
+   :status: valid
+   :safety: ASIL_B
+   :security: YES
+   :realizes: wp__requirements_inspect
+
+
+Requirement Inspection Checklist
+================================
+
+   **Purpose**
+
+   The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during requirements inspection.
+
+   **Conduct**
+
+   As described in the concept :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` the following "inspection roles" are expected to be filled:
+
+   - author: `<https://github.com/rutik7>`_
+   - reviewer: `<https://github.com/4og>`_
+   - moderator: `<https://github.com/aschemmel-tech>`_
+   - test expert: `<https://github.com/rahulthakre29>`_
+
+   **Checklist**
+
+   See also :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` for further information about reviews in general and inspection in particular.
+
+   .. list-table:: Component Requirement Inspection Checklist
+      :header-rows: 1
+      :widths: 10,30,50,6,6,8
+
+      * - Review ID
+        - Acceptance Criteria
+        - Guidance
+        - Passed
+        - Remarks
+        - Issue link
+      * - REQ_01_01
+        - Is the requirement formulation template used?
+        - see :need:`gd_temp__req_formulation`, this includes the use of "shall".
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_02_01
+        - Is the requirement description *comprehensible* ?
+        - If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_02_02
+        - Is the requirement description *unambiguous* ?
+        - Especially search for "weak words" like "about", "etc.", "relevant" and others (see the internet documentation on this). This check shall be supported by tooling.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_02_03
+        - Is the requirement description *atomic* ?
+        - A good way to think about this is to consider if the requirement may be tested by one (positive) test case or needs more of these. The requirement formulation template should also avoid being non-atomic already. Note that there are cases where also non-atomic requirements are the better ones, for example if those are better understandable.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_02_04
+        - Is the requirement description *feasible* ?
+        - If at the time of the inspection the requirement has already some implementation, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_impl` shows this. In case the requirement has no implementation at the time of inspection (i.e. not implemented at least as "proof-of-concept"), a development expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_02_05
+        - Is the requirement description *independent from implementation* ?
+        - This checkpoint should improve requirements definition in the sense that the "what" is described and not the "how" - the latter should be described in architecture/design derived from the requirement. But there can also be a good reason for this, for example we would require using a file format like JSON and even specify the formatting standard already on stakeholder requirement level because we want to be compatible. A finding in this checkpoint does not mean there is a safety problem in the requirement.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_03_01
+        - Is the *linkage to the parent feature/component requirement* correct?
+        - Linkage to correct levels and ASIL attributes is checked automatically, but it needs checking if the child requirement implements (at least) a part of the parent requirement.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_04_01
+        - Is the requirement *internally and externally consistent*?
+        - Does the requirement contradict other requirements within the same or higher levels? One may restrict the search to the feature for component requirements, for features to other features using same components.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_05_01
+        - Do the software requirements consider *timing constraints*?
+        - This checkpoint encourages to think about timing constraints even if those are not explicitly mentioned in the parent requirement. If the reviewer of a requirement already knows or suspects that the code execution will be consuming a lot of time, one should think of the expectation of a "user".
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_06_01
+        - Does the requirement consider *external interfaces*?
+        - The SW platform's external interfaces (to the user) are defined in the Feature Architecture, so the Feature and Component Requirements should determine the input data use and setting of output data for these interfaces. Are all output values defined?
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_07_01
+        - Is the *safety* attribute set correctly?
+        - Derived requirements are checked automatically, see :need:`gd_req__req_linkage_safety`. But for the top level requirements (and also all AoU) this needs to be checked manually for correctness.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_07_02
+        - Is the attribute *security* set correctly?
+        - For component requirements this checklist item is supported by automated check: "Every requirement which satisfies a feature requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this". But the component requirements/architecture may additionally also be subject to a :need:`wp__sw_component_security_analysis`.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_08_01
+        - Is the requirement *verifiable*?
+        - If at the time of the inspection already tests are created for the requirement, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also :need:`gd_req__req_attr_test_covered` shows this. In case the requirement is not sufficiently traced to test cases already, a test expert is invited to the inspection to give their opinion whether the requirement is formulated in a way that supports test development and the available test infrastructure is sufficient to perform the test.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_08_02
+        - Is the requirement verifiable by design or code review in case it is not feasibly testable?
+        - In very rare cases a requirement may not be verifiable by test cases, for example a specific non-functional requirement. In this case a requirement analysis verifies the requirement by design/code review. If such a requirement is in scope of this inspection, please check this here and link to the respective review record. A test expert is invited to the inspection to confirm their opinion that the requirement is not testable.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+      * - REQ_09_01
+        - Do the requirements that define a safety mechanism specify the error reaction leading to a safe state?
+        - Alternatively to the safe state there could also be "repair" mechanisms. Also do not forget to consider REQ_05_01 for these.
+        -
+        -
+        -
+
+
+.. attention::
+    The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component requirements in scope.
+    It is mandatory to fill remarks also for checklist entries which are passed, to be able to understand the verdict.
+
+Note: If a Review ID is not applicable for your requirement, then state ""n/a" in status and comment accordingly in remarks. For example "no stakeholder requirement (no rationale needed)"
+
+The following requirements in "valid" state and with "inspected" tag set are in the scope of this inspection:
+
+.. needtable::
+   :filter: "bitmanipulation" in docname and "requirements" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid"
+   :style: table
+   :types: comp_req
+   :tags: bitmanipulation
+   :columns: id;status;tags
+   :colwidths: 25,25,25
+   :sort: title
+
+And also the following AoUs in "valid" state and with "inspected" tag set (for these please answer the questions above as if the AoUs are requirements, except questions REQ_03_01 and REQ_03_02):
+
+.. needtable::
+   :filter: "bitmanipulation" in docname and "requirements" in docname and docname is not None and status == "valid"
+   :style: table
+   :types: aou_req
+   :tags: bitmanipulation
+   :columns: id;status;tags
+   :colwidths: 25,25,25
+   :sort: title

docs/modules/baselibs/bitmanipulation/docs/requirements/index.rst

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ..
    # *******************************************************************************
-   # Copyright (c) 2025 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation
+   # Copyright (c) 2025-2026 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation
    #
    # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional
    # information regarding copyright ownership.
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ Functional Requirements
    :safety: ASIL_B
    :satisfies: feat_req__baselibs__bitmanipulation, feat_req__baselibs__core_utilities
    :status: valid
+   :tags: inspected
 
    The bit manipulation component shall provide API for setting, clearing, toggling, and checking bits, as well as extracting bytes and manipulating half-bytes and bytes for any integral type up to 64 bits.
 
@@ -46,6 +47,7 @@ Functional Requirements
    :safety: ASIL_B
    :satisfies: feat_req__baselibs__bitmanipulation, feat_req__baselibs__core_utilities
    :status: valid
+   :tags: inspected
 
    The bit manipulation library shall provide type-safe bitmask operations for scoped enumeration types.
 
@@ -56,6 +58,7 @@ Functional Requirements
    :safety: ASIL_B
    :satisfies: feat_req__baselibs__bitmanipulation, feat_req__baselibs__safety
    :status: valid
+   :tags: inspected
 
    All bit manipulation functions shall validate input parameters and prevent data corruption.
 
@@ -69,6 +72,7 @@ Non-Functional Requirements
    :safety: ASIL_B
    :satisfies: feat_req__baselibs__bitmanipulation
    :status: valid
+   :tags: inspected
 
    The bit manipulation API shall be header-only and not require external dependencies.
 
@@ -81,6 +85,7 @@ Assumptions of Use (AoU)
    :security: NO
    :safety: ASIL_B
    :status: valid
+   :tags: inspected
 
    The user shall assume that the API performs bound checking to validate bit positions and ranges provided to the bit manipulation functions.
 
@@ -90,6 +95,7 @@ Assumptions of Use (AoU)
    :security: NO
    :safety: ASIL_B
    :status: valid
+   :tags: inspected
 
    The user shall only use bit manipulation functions with integral types (integers, enumerations) as specified in the library's type constraints. Operations on floating-point or non-integral types are not supported.
 
@@ -99,6 +105,7 @@ Assumptions of Use (AoU)
    :security: NO
    :safety: ASIL_B
    :status: valid
+   :tags: inspected
 
    The user shall use scoped enumeration types (enum class) whose enumerators are defined as non-zero power-of-two values (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc.)
 
@@ -108,6 +115,7 @@ Assumptions of Use (AoU)
    :security: NO
    :safety: ASIL_B
    :status: valid
+   :tags: inspected
 
    The user shall implement external synchronization mechanisms (e.g., mutexes, atomic operations, or locks) when accessing or modifying the same integral value from multiple threads concurrently, as the library provides no internal thread safety guarantees.
 
@@ -117,8 +125,9 @@ Assumptions of Use (AoU)
    :security: NO
    :safety: ASIL_B
    :status: valid
+   :tags: inspected
 
    The user shall validate byte and half-byte extraction indices to ensure they correspond to valid positions within the target integral type to prevent accessing invalid memory ranges.
 
 .. needextend:: "__bitmanipulation__" in id
-   :+tags: baselibs
+   :+tags: baselibs, bitmanipulation

docs/modules/baselibs/result/docs/requirements/chklst_req_inspection.rst

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Requirement Inspection Checklist
    As described in the concept :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` the following "inspection roles" are expected to be filled:
 
    - author: `<https://github.com/4og>`_
-   - reviewer: these are all persons committing into this inspection document or giving a pull request verdict on it (can be derived from version mgt tool)
+   - reviewer: `<https://github.com/aschemmel-tech>`_
    - moderator: only needed for conflict resolution between author and reviewers, is the safety manager, security manager or quality manager called in as a reviewer (can be derived from version mgt tool)
    - test expert: `<https://github.com/rahulthakre29>`_
 

docs/modules/baselibs/result/docs/requirements/index.rst

@@ -161,6 +161,4 @@ Assumptions of Use (AoU)
 
 
 .. needextend:: "__result__" in id
-   :+tags: baselibs
-.. needextend:: "result" in id
-   :+tags: result_library
+   :+tags: baselibs, result_library