Closed
Conversation
Signed-off-by: aschemmel-tech <aschemmel_job@arcor.de>
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-patch-2
branch
from
15e5982 to
4cbc59a
Compare
Erikhu1
reviewed
Nov 11, 2025
|
|
||
| Evidence | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Manual process documentation |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reference to nlohmann/json contribution guidelines
|
|
||
| 1. Manual process documentation | ||
|
|
||
| 2. References to methodologies applied as part of these processes |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Revisit (clarify what this means)
|
|
||
| 2. References to methodologies applied as part of these processes | ||
|
|
||
| 3. Results of applying the processes |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Revisit (clarify what this means)
|
|
||
| 3. Results of applying the processes | ||
|
|
||
| 4. Criteria used to confirm that the processes were applied correctly |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review process, branch protection rules, etc?
|
|
||
| aschemmel-tech: it is not clear what the integrator has to do, it should be added that the integrator shall review the SME scores and add his scores where necessary, | ||
| for example for his fulfilllment of AoUs. AOUs are supposed to be linked to TA-CONSTRAINTS instead. Propose to add another statement (in TA-CONSTRAINTS) about the | ||
| S-CORE scoring of trust based on correctness and completeness of AoUs created. No newline at end of file |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do the same as in TT-CHANGES
| Each statement is scored based on SME reviews or automatic validation functions. (TODO) No newline at end of file | ||
| Each statement is scored based on SME reviews or automatic validation functions. | ||
|
|
||
| aschemmel-tech: Propose to add here as reference a link to the accumulated score. Some scores are already present, so added also a score for this No newline at end of file |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add reference to total TSF score
| Scores are reasonably, systematically and repeatably accumulated. (TODO) No newline at end of file | ||
| Scores are reasonably, systematically and repeatably accumulated. | ||
|
|
||
| aschemmel-tech: Propose to add here as reference a link to the algorithm description (which should be updated based on last feedback/review). No newline at end of file |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nothing to do at the moment (concept page will be updated after merging erikhu1-review_round_3)
| aschemmel-tech: As already agreed, we need separate statements on the processes/manual reviews applied for nlohman and for S-CORE. | ||
| For nlohman part we could refer to the github reviews of every PR before merge, is there some guideline/checklist to do this? | ||
| How many people do this review (e.g. does Mr. Lohman approve all?) How do we judge the quality of the review (comments)? | ||
| For S-CORE we need to describe how those are used to verify the nlohman lib, e.g. if we add tests these are reviewed with S-CORE checklists. No newline at end of file |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
split statement into two:
- One for nlohmann/json
- Refer CODEOWNERS (showing that Niels Lohmann is the only reviewer, which makes it consistent)
- Refer to contribution guidelines and github reviews (specifically filter for push to master, which should be empty)
- one for S-CORE
- Reference the update process and release management (already in TSF/README)
| A github workflow saves the history of scores in the trustable graph to derive trends. No newline at end of file | ||
| A github workflow saves the history of scores in the trustable graph to derive trends. | ||
|
|
||
| aschemmel-tech: do we also have some display of the historical data planned (to use for analyses)? Is this already provided/automated by TSF? No newline at end of file |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
display of historical data is already provided by TSF.
- The persistent storage of data already exists (implemented by us) but is just a proof of concept, and should be updated to a more sophisticated version by the integrator (as stated in AOU-29).
- TO-DO: check if AOU-29 needs to be clarified more.
This was referenced Nov 13, 2025
Author
|
Topics taken into account in eclipse-score#9 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
no impact on nlohman/json
modified assertions and evidences and SME scores