Update Safety Analysis Template#669
Conversation
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
ANegm-ETAS
requested review from
PandaeDo,
aschemmel-tech,
masc2023 and
pahmann
as code owners
masc2023
left a comment
masc2023
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you add process requirements for the attributes in the safety analysis process area and mark them as optional?
|
yes, added in the PR below |
This is maybe an misunderstanding, I wrote process requirements, has to be added here |
you're right i thought you were talking about docs-as-code requirements I'll update this PR |
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
aschemmel-tech
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In addition to the process requirements it should be also taken over in the guideline (https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/safety_analysis/guidance/safety_analysis_guideline.html#step-by-step-approach-fmea) how these optional attributes should be used. In my current analysises I put the information about the root cause in the rationale section of the failure mode list.
masc2023
left a comment
masc2023
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My comments have been resolved
PandaeDo
left a comment
PandaeDo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed I don't see the benefits of the failure_root_cause. If there is a weak description in the failure effect, another field will not cover this. So I would prefer to add additional description(s), example(s) and/or checklist.
If we would agree on your approach, please update also the examples in the guidelines accroding to your approach.
5 participants
relevant docs-as-code PR
eclipse-score/docs-as-code#517