Skip to content

Conversation

@RolandJentschETAS
Copy link
Contributor

📌 Description

Correct architecture elements and modify component template accordingly

🚨 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
Copy link

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

Copy link
Contributor

@masc2023 masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is feature not updated too in this PR, as it is also introduced? Should there not be an relationship between static architectures and components?

@RolandJentschETAS
Copy link
Contributor Author

Why is feature not updated too in this PR, as it is also introduced? Should there not be an relationship between static architectures and components?

I'm on the relation to the code from the safety audit findings. Feature can be added later (small PRs).

@masc2023
Copy link
Contributor

Why is feature not updated too in this PR, as it is also introduced? Should there not be an relationship between static architectures and components?

I'm on the relation to the code from the safety audit findings. Feature can be added later (small PRs).

Disagree her, you introduced already the feature type, see your PR, so why not reflecting it directly, and I see no relationship why you should only consider audit findings as argument against it.

@RolandJentschETAS RolandJentschETAS changed the title correct architecture elements and modify component template Improvement: correct architecture elements and modify component template Dec 15, 2025
@RolandJentschETAS
Copy link
Contributor Author

Why is feature not updated too in this PR, as it is also introduced? Should there not be an relationship between static architectures and components?

I'm on the relation to the code from the safety audit findings. Feature can be added later (small PRs).

Disagree her, you introduced already the feature type, see your PR, so why not reflecting it directly, and I see no relationship why you should only consider audit findings as argument against it.

Added feature now ...

Copy link
Contributor

@masc2023 masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the including of the feature. Let's discuss some general topics tomorrow in the meeting

:security: YES
:safety: ASIL_B
:status: invalid
:implements: logic_arc_int__feature_name__interface_name
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will be clarified in future, if this is correct

@masc2023 masc2023 merged commit d81f032 into eclipse-score:main Dec 16, 2025
5 checks passed
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.

2 participants