Skip to content

fix: Update tool requirements & update to process 2.0.2 - #659

Open
MaximilianSoerenPollak wants to merge 5 commits into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
MaximilianSoerenPollak:MSP_update_process
Open

fix: Update tool requirements & update to process 2.0.2#659
MaximilianSoerenPollak wants to merge 5 commits into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
MaximilianSoerenPollak:MSP_update_process

Conversation

@MaximilianSoerenPollak

@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

📌 Description

Updates to newest process release, and adapts one tool requirement and expands it so it covers the new process req version

🚨 Impact Analysis

  • This change does not violate any tool requirements and is covered by existing tool requirements
  • This change does not violate any design decisions
  • Otherwise I have created a ticket for new tool qualification

✅ Checklist

  • Added/updated documentation for new or changed features
  • Added/updated tests to cover the changes
  • Followed project coding standards and guidelines

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 23, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

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

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output 
[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 19ab3526-ad68-4ad0-a637-29d08e15bf53
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: src
DEBUG: /home/runner/.bazel/external/rules_python+/python/private/repo_utils.bzl:101:16: 
rules_python:coverage_dep WARNING: rules_python's bundled coverage tool has no wheel for python_version=3.12.13, platform=ppc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. `bazel coverage` will produce empty lcov for py_test targets in this configuration. Either pin python_version to a version in the bundled set (see python/private/coverage_deps.bzl), or configure coverage manually via py_runtime.coverage_tool. See docs/coverage.md.
DEBUG: /home/runner/.bazel/external/rules_python+/python/private/repo_utils.bzl:101:16: 
rules_python:coverage_dep WARNING: rules_python's bundled coverage tool has no wheel for python_version=3.12.13, platform=riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu. `bazel coverage` will produce empty lcov for py_test targets in this configuration. Either pin python_version to a version in the bundled set (see python/private/coverage_deps.bzl), or configure coverage manually via py_runtime.coverage_tool. See docs/coverage.md.
DEBUG: /home/runner/.bazel/external/rules_python+/python/private/repo_utils.bzl:101:16: 
rules_python:coverage_dep WARNING: rules_python's bundled coverage tool has no wheel for python_version=3.12.13, platform=s390x-unknown-linux-gnu. `bazel coverage` will produce empty lcov for py_test targets in this configuration. Either pin python_version to a version in the bundled set (see python/private/coverage_deps.bzl), or configure coverage manually via py_runtime.coverage_tool. See docs/coverage.md.
DEBUG: /home/runner/.bazel/external/rules_python+/python/private/repo_utils.bzl:101:16: 
rules_python:coverage_dep WARNING: rules_python's bundled coverage tool has no wheel for python_version=3.12.13, platform=x86_64-unknown-linux-musl. `bazel coverage` will produce empty lcov for py_test targets in this configuration. Either pin python_version to a version in the bundled set (see python/private/coverage_deps.bzl), or configure coverage manually via py_runtime.coverage_tool. See docs/coverage.md.
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: src
WARNING: Target pattern parsing failed.
ERROR: Skipping '//src:license-check': no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
Analyzing: 0 targets (1 packages loaded)
ERROR: no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
INFO: Elapsed time: 7.356s
INFO: 0 processes.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
ERROR: Build failed. Not running target

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak changed the title Msp update process fix: Update tool requirements & update to process 2.0.2 Jul 23, 2026
a-zw
a-zw requested changes Jul 23, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread docs/internals/requirements/requirements.rst Outdated
Comment on lines 285 to 286
Docs-as-Code shall check if linked needs have different versions, compared to
the version the need was originally linked to.

@a-zw a-zw Jul 23, 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.

Parent gd_req__req_suspicious says:

Based on the requirement versioning it shall be checked if a requirement was updated but not the linked tests. In case an update was detected the attribute complete test coverage shall be set to “No”

I don't see how we cover this at all? This tool_req__docs_common_attr_suspicious is not about tests and it also sounds more general going beyond just tests.

@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak Jul 27, 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.

I need to re-work this.

What do we do with this one then, I think it makes sense to have, but maybe we don't need to write it down?

Comment thread docs/internals/requirements/requirements.rst
Comment on lines +313 to +316
Docs-as-Code shall set the ``testcovered`` attribute (see
:need:`tool_req__docs_req_attr_testcov`) of a requirement to ``No`` whenever
:need:`tool_req__docs_req_testlink_outdated_check` detects that a linked test is
outdated with respect to the requirement's version.

@a-zw a-zw Jul 23, 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.

I don't like this requirement. This would be very confusing for users, if the testcovered attribute in HTML is different than in the source rst.

@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak Jul 27, 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.

I see what you mean ye.
This would be quiet confusing, we should find a way that we can force the user to update it.

AlexanderLanin
AlexanderLanin previously approved these changes Jul 29, 2026
View reviewed changes
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks for the pull request. This thread has been quiet for 30 days, so we are marking it as stale for now. Please take a quick look and let us know whether it is still up to date, still relevant, needs review, or is ready to merge. Any new activity will remove the stale label automatically. If nothing changes in the next 10 days, we will close it to keep the backlog current.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the stale label Aug 29, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@a-zw a-zw a-zw requested changes
@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin left review comments
@dcalavrezo-qorix dcalavrezo-qorix Awaiting requested review from dcalavrezo-qorix dcalavrezo-qorix is a code owner
@nradakovic nradakovic Awaiting requested review from nradakovic nradakovic is a code owner

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

stale

Projects

INF - Infrastructure Community
Status: No status

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@MaximilianSoerenPollak @AlexanderLanin @a-zw