Skip to content

verification: include non-functional requirements verification - #3404

Open
pahmann wants to merge 1 commit into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
etas-contrib:pahmann/ver-non-func
Open

pahmann wants to merge 1 commit into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
etas-contrib:pahmann/ver-non-func

Conversation

@pahmann

@pahmann pahmann commented Oct 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Resolves: eclipse-score/process_description#813
Signed-off-by: Philipp Ahmann <philipp.ahmann@de.bosch.com>
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Documentation preview for this pull request is available at:
pr-3404: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-3404/

components or software changes. A specific selection of sub sets is not planned. The fact that all existing and
automated tests get executed continuously covers the approach to identify regressions.

Additionally, manual and non-functional verification activities should be carried out on regular basis,

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.

manual test, non-functional verification is also manual, also in general all manual verification activities should or shall?

Verification of non-functional requirements
-------------------------------------------

Similar to the rare case of manual test execution also some requirements may not be verifiable by test but by analysis.

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.

but by other manual verification methods, e.g. checklist based analysis?

Similar to the rare case of manual test execution also some requirements may not be verifiable by test but by analysis.

To verify such a non-functional or not feasibly testable requirement, the respective links for traceability need to be
established as for any other automated test case. Therefore, the documentation for non-functional verification uses

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.

any other manual or automated test cases, as manual test also still exists

established as for any other automated test case. Therefore, the documentation for non-functional verification uses
the same templates as any other automated or manual test and especially includes the Record Properties.

The Record Properties for non-functional verification should be testtype `requirements-based` and derivation technique `requirement-analysis`.

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.

would not be better manual-requirement-verification, is there only analysis existing, e.g. for Process Requirements, Audit or Assessment is also possible method


The Record Properties for non-functional verification should be testtype `requirements-based` and derivation technique `requirement-analysis`.

The non-functional verification requires a script to be provided which describes the analysis steps performed and their result.

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.

Would it not be easier, if a standard method from our process framework is used, and just link to it?

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Backlog
Status: No status

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Verification coverage of non-functional requirements

2 participants