summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/eng
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de>2019-07-24 15:37:27 +0200
committerSebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de>2020-01-07 07:45:49 +0100
commitd412c5bf2a35bd6d24ef388d68a718390cfee41e (patch)
treeba203ab2101908e6ed82b594a907212b46013bda /eng
parent1ff876aa5930b625d45164335f69fc04bf0601cd (diff)
downloadrtems-docs-d412c5bf2a35bd6d24ef388d68a718390cfee41e.tar.bz2
eng: Add Software Requirements Engineering chapter
Update #3715.
Diffstat (limited to 'eng')
-rw-r--r--eng/index.rst1
-rw-r--r--eng/req-eng.rst1177
2 files changed, 1178 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/eng/index.rst b/eng/index.rst
index fb00e42..ed314a9 100644
--- a/eng/index.rst
+++ b/eng/index.rst
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ RTEMS Software Engineering (|version|)
mission
stakeholders
prequalification
+ req-eng
management
test-plan
test-framework
diff --git a/eng/req-eng.rst b/eng/req-eng.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..61b82be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/eng/req-eng.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,1177 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
+
+.. Copyright (C) 2019 embedded brains GmbH
+
+.. |E40| replace:: ECSS-E-ST-40C
+
+.. |E10-06| replace:: ECSS-E-ST-10-06C
+
+.. _ReqEng:
+
+Software Requirements Engineering
+*********************************
+
+Software engineering standards for critical software such as |E40| demand that
+software requirements for a software product are collected in a software
+requirements specification (technical specification in |E40| terms). They are
+usually derived from system requirements (requirements baseline in |E40|
+terms). RTEMS is designed as a reusable software product which can be utilized
+by application designers to ease the development of their applications. The
+requirements of the end system (system requirements) using RTEMS are only known
+to the application designer. RTEMS itself is developed by the RTEMS
+maintainers and they do not know the requirements of a particular end system in
+general. RTEMS is designed as a real-time operating system to meet typical
+system requirements for a wide range of applications. Its suitability for a
+particular application must be determined by the application designer based on
+the technical specification provided by RTEMS accompanied with performance data
+for a particular target platform.
+
+Currently, no technical specification of RTEMS exists in the form of a
+dedicated document. Since the beginning of the RTEMS evolution in the late
+1980s it was developed iteratively. It was never developed in a waterfall
+model. During initial development the RTEID :cite:`Motorola:1988:RTEID` and
+later the ORKID :cite:`VITA:1990:ORKID` draft specifications were used as
+requirements. These were evolving during the development and an iterative
+approach was followed often using simple algorithms and coming back to
+optimise. In 1993 and 1994 a subset of pthreads sufficient to support
+:term:`GNAT` was added as requirements. At this time the Ada tasking was
+defined, however, not implemented in GNAT, so this involved guessing during the
+development. Later some adjustments were made when Ada tasking was actually
+implemented. So, it was consciously iterative with the specifications evolving
+and feedback from performance analysis. Benchmarks published from other real
+time operating systems were used for comparison. Optimizations were carried
+out until the results were comparable. Development was done with distinct
+contractual phases and tasks for development, optimization, and the addition of
+priority inheritance and rate monotonic scheduling. The pthreads requirement
+has grown to be as much POSIX as possible.
+
+Portability from FreeBSD to use its network stack, USB stack, SD/MMC card stack
+and device drivers resulted in another set of requirements. The addition of
+support for symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) was a huge driver for change. It
+was developed step by step and sponsored by several independent users with
+completely different applications and target platforms in mind. The high
+performance OpenMP support introduced the Futex as a new synchronization
+primitive.
+
+.. topic:: Guidance
+
+ A key success element of RTEMS is the ability to accept changes driven by
+ user needs and still keep the operating system stable enough for production
+ systems. Procedures that place a high burden on changes are doomed to be
+ discarded by the RTEMS Project. We have to keep this in mind when we
+ introduce a requirements management work flow which should be followed by
+ RTEMS community members and new contributors.
+
+We have to put in some effort first into the reconstruction of software
+requirements through reverse engineering using the RTEMS documentation, test
+cases, sources, standard references, mailing list archives, etc. as input.
+Writing a technical specification for the complete RTEMS code base is probably
+a job of several person-years. We have to get started with a moderate feature
+set (e.g. subset of the Classic API) and extend it based on user demands step
+by step.
+
+The development of the technical specification will take place in two phases.
+The first phase tries to establish an initial technical specification for an
+initial feature set. This technical specification will be integrated into
+RTEMS as a big chunk. In the second phase the technical specification is
+modified through arranged procedures. There will be procedures
+
+* to modify existing requirements,
+
+* add new requirements, and
+
+* mark requirements as obsolete.
+
+All procedures should be based on a peer review principles.
+
+Requirements for Requirements
+=============================
+
+.. _ReqEngIdent:
+
+Identification
+--------------
+
+Each requirement shall have a unique identifier (UID). The question is in
+which scope should it be unique? Ideally, it should be universally unique. As
+a best effort approach, the name *RTEMS* shall be used as a part in all
+requirement identifiers. This should ensure that the RTEMS requirements can be
+referenced easily in larger systems. The standard ECSS-E-ST-10-06C recommends
+in section 8.2.6 that the identifier should reflect the type of the requirement
+and the life profile situation. Other standards may have other
+recommendations. To avoid a bias of RTEMS in the direction of ECSS, this
+recommendation will not be followed.
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ The UID of an item (requirement) is defined by its file name without the
+ extension. An UID consists of two parts, the prefix and a name or a number.
+ The parts are divided by an optional separator. The prefix is determined by
+ the document.
+
+The UID scheme for RTEMS requirements is the concatenation of *RTEMS*, one or
+more component names, and a name. Each part is separated by a "-"
+character. For example, the UID RTEMS-CLASSIC-TASK-CREATERRINVADDR may specify
+that the `rtems_task_create()` directive shall return a status of
+`RTEMS_INVALID_ADDRESS` if the `id` parameter is `NULL`.
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ Doorstop uses documents to create namespaces (named a prefix in Doorstop).
+ For the example above, you can create the documents like this:
+
+ .. code-block:: none
+
+ doorstop create -s - RTEMS-CLASSIC -p RTEMS spec/classic
+ doorstop create -s - RTEMS-CLASSIC-TASK -p RTEMS-CLASSIC spec/classic/task
+ doorstop create -s - RTEMS-CLASSIC-SEMAPHORE -p RTEMS-CLASSIC spec/classic/semaphore
+
+ The requirement files are organized in directories.
+
+A initial requirement item hierarchy could be this:
+
+* RTEMS
+
+ * BUILD (building RTEMS BSPs and libraries)
+
+ * CONFIG (application configuration)
+
+ * CLASSIC
+
+ * TASK
+
+ * CREAT* (requirements for `rtems_task_create()`)
+ * DELT* (requirements for `rtems_task_delete()`)
+ * EXIT* (requirements for `rtems_task_exit()`)
+ * GETAFF* (requirements for `rtems_task_get_affinity()`)
+ * GETPRI* (requirements for `rtems_task_get_priority()`)
+ * GETSHD* (requirements for `rtems_task_get_scheduler()`)
+ * IDNT* (requirements for `rtems_task_ident()`)
+ * ISSUSP* (requirements for `rtems_task_is_suspended()`)
+ * ITER* (requirements for `rtems_task_iterate()`)
+ * MODE* (requirements for `rtems_task_mode()`)
+ * RESTRT* (requirements for `rtems_task_restart()`)
+ * RESUME* (requirements for `rtems_task_resume()`)
+ * SELF* (requirements for `rtems_task_self()`)
+ * SETAFF* (requirements for `rtems_task_set_affinity()`)
+ * SETPRI* (requirements for `rtems_task_set_priority()`)
+ * SETSHD* (requirements for `rtems_task_set_scheduler()`)
+ * START* (requirements for `rtems_task_start()`)
+ * SUSP* (requirements for `rtems_task_suspend()`)
+ * WKAFT* (requirements for `rtems_task_wake_after()`)
+ * WKWHN* (requirements for `rtems_task_wake_when()`)
+
+ * Semaphore
+
+ * ...
+
+ * POSIX
+
+ * ...
+
+A more detailed naming scheme and guidelines should be established. We have to
+find the right balance between the length of UIDs and self-descriptive UIDs. A
+clear scheme for all Classic API managers may help to keep the UIDs short and
+descriptive.
+
+The specification of the validation of requirements should be maintained also by
+Doorstop. For each requirement document there should be a validation child
+Doorstop document with a *TEST* component name, e.g. RTEMS-CLASSIC-TASK-TEST. A
+test document may contain also validations by analysis, by inspection, and by
+design, see :ref:`ReqEngValidation`.
+
+Level of Requirements
+---------------------
+
+The level of a requirement shall be expressed with one of the verbal forms
+listed below and nothing else. The level of requirements are derived from RFC
+2119 :cite:`RFC2119` and |E10-06| :cite:`ECSS_E_ST_10_06C`.
+
+Absolute Requirements
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Absolute requirements shall be expressed with the verbal form *shall* and no
+other terms.
+
+Absolute Prohibitions
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Absolute prohibitions shall be expressed with the verbal form *shall not* and
+no other terms.
+
+.. warning::
+
+ Absolute prohibitions may be difficult to validate. They should not be
+ used.
+
+Recommendations
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Recommendations shall be expressed with the verbal forms *should* and
+*should not* and no other terms with guidance from RFC 2119:
+
+ SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
+ may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
+ particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
+ carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
+
+ SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
+ there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
+ particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
+ implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
+ before implementing any behavior described with this label.
+
+Permissions
+~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Permissions shall be expressed with the verbal form *may* and no other terms
+with guidance from RFC 2119:
+
+ MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
+ truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
+ particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
+ it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
+ An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
+ prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
+ include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
+ same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
+ MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
+ does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
+ option provides.)
+
+Possibilities and Capabilities
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Possibilities and capabilities shall be expressed with the verbal form *can*
+and no other terms.
+
+.. _ReqEngSyntax:
+
+Syntax
+------
+
+Use the Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax (:term:`EARS`) to formulate
+requirements. A recommended reading list to get familiar with this approach is
+:cite:`Mavin:2009:EARS`, :cite:`Mavin:2010:BigEars`, and
+:cite:`Mavin:2016:LLEARS`. Please also have a look at the EARS quick reference
+sheet :cite:`Uusitalo:2012:EARS`. The sentence types are:
+
+* Ubiquitous
+
+ The <system name> shall <system response>.
+
+* Event-driven
+
+ *When* <optional preconditions> <trigger>, the <system name> shall <system response>.
+
+* State-driven
+
+ *While* <in state>, the <system name> shall <system response>.
+
+* Unwanted behaviour
+
+ *If* <optional preconditions> <trigger>, *then* the <system name> shall <system response>.
+
+* Optional
+
+ *Where* <feature>, the <system name> shall <system response>.
+
+The optional sentence type should be only used for application configuration
+options. The goal is to use the *enabled-by* attribute to enable or disable
+requirements based on configuration parameters that define the RTEMS artefacts
+used to build an application executable (header files, libraries, linker command
+files). Such configuration parameters are for example the architecture, the
+platform, CPU port options, and build configuration options (e.g. uniprocessor
+vs. SMP).
+
+Wording Restrictions
+--------------------
+
+To prevent the expression of imprecise requirements, the following terms shall
+not be used in requirement formulations:
+
+* "acceptable"
+* "adequate"
+* "almost always"
+* "and/or"
+* "appropriate"
+* "approximately"
+* "as far as possible"
+* "as much as practicable"
+* "best"
+* "best possible"
+* "easy"
+* "efficient"
+* "e.g."
+* "enable"
+* "enough"
+* "etc."
+* "few"
+* "first rate"
+* "flexible"
+* "generally"
+* "goal"
+* "graceful"
+* "great"
+* "greatest"
+* "ideally"
+* "i.e."
+* "if possible"
+* "in most cases"
+* "large"
+* "many"
+* "maximize"
+* "minimize"
+* "most"
+* "multiple"
+* "necessary"
+* "numerous"
+* "optimize"
+* "ought to"
+* "probably"
+* "quick"
+* "rapid"
+* "reasonably"
+* "relevant"
+* "robust"
+* "satisfactory"
+* "several"
+* "shall be included but not limited to"
+* "simple"
+* "small"
+* "some"
+* "state-of-the-art".
+* "sufficient"
+* "suitable"
+* "support"
+* "systematically"
+* "transparent"
+* "typical"
+* "user-friendly"
+* "usually"
+* "versatile"
+* "when necessary"
+
+For guidelines to avoid these terms see Table 11-2, "Some ambiguous terms to
+avoid in requirements" in :cite:`Wiegers:2013:SR`. There should be some means
+to enforce that these terms are not used, e.g. through a client-side pre-commit
+Git hook, a server-side pre-receive Git hook, or some scripts run by special
+build commands.
+
+Separate Requirements
+---------------------
+
+Requirements shall be stated separately. A bad example is:
+
+RTEMS-CLASSIC-TASK-CRAT
+ The task create directive shall evaluate the parameters, allocate a task
+ object and initialize it.
+
+To make this a better example, it should be split into separate requirements:
+
+RTEMS-CLASSIC-TASK-CRAT
+ When the task create directive is called with valid parameters and a free
+ task object exists, the task create directive shall assign the identifier of
+ an initialized task object to the id parameter and return the
+ RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL status.
+
+RTEMS-CLASSIC-TASK-CRATERRTOOMANY
+ If no free task objects exists, the task create directive shall return the
+ RTEMS_TOO_MANY status.
+
+RTEMS-CLASSIC-TASK-CRATERRINVADDR
+ If the id parameter is NULL, the task create directive shall return the
+ RTEMS_INVALID_ADDRESS status.
+
+RTEMS-CLASSIC-TASK-CRATERRINVNAME
+ If the name parameter is not valid, the task create directive shall return
+ the RTEMS_INVALID_NAME status.
+
+ ...
+
+Conflict Free Requirements
+--------------------------
+
+Requirements shall not be in conflict with each other inside a specification.
+A bad example is:
+
+RTEMS-CLASSIC-SEMAPHORE-MTXOBWAIT
+ If a mutex is not available, the mutex obtain directive shall enqueue the
+ calling thread on the wait queue of the mutex.
+
+RTEMS-CLASSIC-SEMAPHORE-MTXOBERRUNSAT
+ If a mutex is not available, the mutex obtain directive shall return the
+ RTEMS_UNSATISFIED status.
+
+To resolve this conflict, a condition may be added:
+
+RTEMS-CLASSIC-SEMAPHORE-MTXOBWAIT
+ If a mutex is not available, when the RTEMS_WAIT option is set, the mutex
+ obtain directive shall enqueue the calling thread on the wait queue of the
+ mutex.
+
+RTEMS-CLASSIC-SEMAPHORE-MTXOBERRUNSAT
+ If a mutex is not available, when the RTEMS_WAIT option is not set, the
+ mutex obtain directive shall return the RTEMS_UNSATISFIED status.
+
+Use of Project-Specific Terms and Abbreviations
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+All project-specific terms and abbreviations used to formulate requirements
+shall be defined in the project glossary.
+
+.. _ReqEngJustReq:
+
+Justification of Requirements
+-----------------------------
+
+Each requirement shall have a rationale or justification recorded in a
+dedicated section of the requirement file.
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ See *rationale* attribute for :ref:`ReqEngSpecItems`.
+
+.. _ReqEngSpecItems:
+
+Specification Items
+===================
+
+The technical specification of RTEMS will contain requirements, specializations
+of requirements, :ref:`test procedures <ReqEngTestProcedure>`,
+:ref:`test suites <ReqEngTestSuite>`, :ref:`test cases <ReqEngTestCase>`, and
+:ref:`requirement validations <ReqEngValidation>`. These things will be called
+*specification items* or just *items* if it is clear from the context.
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ Doorstop maintains *items* which are included in *documents*. The normal
+ use case is to store a requirement with meta-data in an item. However,
+ items can be also used to store other things like test procedures, test
+ suites, test cases, and requirement validations. Items contain key-value
+ pairs called attributes. Specializations of requirements may contain extra
+ attributes, e.g. interface, build, configuration requirements. All items
+ have the following standard Doorstop attributes:
+
+ active
+ A boolean value which indicates if the requirement is active or not.
+ The value is included in the fingerprint via a document configuration
+ option.
+
+ derived
+ A boolean value which indicates if the requirement is derived or not.
+ For the
+ `definition of derived <https://github.com/jacebrowning/doorstop/blob/develop/docs/reference/item.md#derived>`_.
+ see the Doorstop documentation. For RTEMS, this value shall be false
+ for all requirements. The value is not included in the fingerprint.
+
+ normative
+ A boolean value which indicates if the requirement is normative or not.
+ For the
+ `definition of normative <https://github.com/jacebrowning/doorstop/blob/develop/docs/reference/item.md#normative>`_.
+ see the Doorstop documentation. For RTEMS, this value shall be true
+ for all requirements. The value is not included in the fingerprint.
+
+ level
+ Indicates the presentation order within a document. For RTEMS, this
+ value shall be unused. The value is not included in the fingerprint.
+
+ header
+ A header for an item. For RTEMS, this value shall be the empty string.
+ The value is not included in the fingerprint.
+
+ reviewed
+ The fingerprint of the item. Maintain this attribute with the
+ `doorstop clear` command.
+
+ links
+ The links from this item to parent items. Maintain this attribute with
+ the `doorstop link` command. The value is included in the fingerprint.
+
+ ref
+ References to files and directories. See
+ `#365 <https://github.com/jacebrowning/doorstop/issues/365>`_,
+ The value is included in the fingerprint.
+
+ text
+ The item text. The value is included in the fingerprint.
+
+ All specification items shall have the following extended attributes:
+
+ type:
+ A list of :ref:`item types <ReqEngItemTypes>`. The value is not
+ included in the fingerprint.
+
+ enabled-by:
+ The value is a list of expressions. The value is included in the
+ fingerprint. An expression is an operator or an option. An option
+ evaluates to true if it is included the set of enabled options of the
+ configuration. An operator is a dictionary with exactly one key and a
+ value. Valid keys are `and`, `or`, and `not`:
+
+ * The value of the `and` operator shall be a list of expressions. It
+ evaluates to the `logical and` of all outcomes of the expressions in
+ the list.
+
+ * The value of the `or` operator shall be a list of expressions. It
+ evaluates to the `logical or` of all outcomes of the expressions in
+ the list.
+
+ * The value of the `not` operator shall be an expression. It negates
+ the outcome of its expression.
+
+ The outcome of a list of expressions without an operator is the
+ `logical or` of all outcomes of the expressions in the list. An empty
+ list evaluates to true. Examples:
+
+ .. code-block:: none
+
+ enabled-by:
+ - RTEMS_SMP
+
+ .. code-block:: none
+
+ enabled-by:
+ - and:
+ - RTEMS_NETWORKING
+ - not: RTEMS_SMP
+
+ .. code-block:: none
+
+ enabled-by:
+ - and:
+ - not: TEST_DEBUGGER01_EXCLUDE
+ - or:
+ - arm
+ - i386
+
+.. _ReqEngItemTypes:
+
+Item Types
+----------
+
+Specification items can have all sorts of *types*. The selection of types and
+the level of detail depends on a particular standard and product model. We need
+enough flexibility to be in line with ECSS-E-ST-10-06 and possible future
+applications of other standards. Each item may have a list of types. Valid
+types are listed below. This list may change over time. If new types are
+added, then a mapping between types should be specified. The item types and
+their definition is work in progress. A list of types follows:
+
+* requirement
+
+ * functional - Functional requirements shall describe the behaviour of the
+ software product under specific conditions.
+
+ * *capability*
+
+ * *dependability-function*
+
+ * *function*
+
+ * *operational* - Operational requirements shall
+
+ * define the operation modes (e.g. initialization, multitasking, termination),
+
+ * describe the operation modes, and
+
+ * describe the operation mode transitions.
+
+ * *safety-function*
+
+ * non-functional
+
+ * *build-configuration*
+
+ * *constraint*
+
+ * *design*
+
+ * *interface*
+
+ * *interface-requirement*
+
+ * *maintainability*
+
+ * *performance*
+
+ * *portability*
+
+ * *quality*
+
+ * *reliability*
+
+ * *resource*
+
+ * *safety*
+
+* *test-procedure*
+
+* *test-suite*
+
+* *test-case*
+
+* *validation-by-analysis*
+
+* *validation-by-inspection*
+
+* *validation-by-review-of-design*
+
+* *validation-platform*
+
+.. image:: ../images/eng/req-spec-items.*
+ :scale: 70
+ :align: center
+
+Requirements
+------------
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ All requirement specification items shall have the following extended
+ attribute:
+
+ rationale:
+ The rationale or justification of the specification item. The value is
+ **not** included in the fingerprint.
+
+Build Configuration
+-------------------
+
+Build configuration requirements define what needs to be built (libraries,
+object files, test executables, etc.) and how (configuration option header
+files, compiler flags, linker flags, etc.). The goal is to generate build
+files (Makefile or waf) and content for the Software Configuration File (SCF)
+from it. A YAML scheme needs to be defined for this purpose.
+
+.. _ReqEngInterfaceReq:
+
+Interface Requirement
+---------------------
+
+Interface requirements shall describe the high level aspects of interfaces.
+The item type shall be *interface-requirement*.
+
+.. _ReqEngInterface:
+
+Interface
+---------
+
+Interface items shall specify the interface of the software product to other
+software products and the hardware. The item type shall be *interface*. The
+interface items shall have an *interface-category* which is one of the
+following and nothing else:
+
+* *application*: Application interface items shall describe the interface
+ between the software product and the application (:term:`API`). The goal is
+ to generate header files with Doxygen markup and user manual documentation
+ parts from the application interface specification.
+
+* *application-configuration*: Application configuration items shall define
+ parameters of the software product which can be set by the application at
+ link-time. The goal is to generate user manual documentation parts and test
+ cases from the application configuration specification.
+
+* *architecture*: Architecture interface items shall define the
+ interface between the software product and the processor architecture
+ (:term:`ABI`).
+
+* *gcc*: GCC interface items shall define the interface between the software
+ product and GCC components such as libgcc.a, libatomic.a, libgomp.a,
+ libstdc++.a, etc.
+
+* *hardware*: Hardware interface items shall define the interface between the
+ software product and the hardware.
+
+* *newlib*: Newlib interface items shall define the interface between the
+ software product and the Newlib (libc.a).
+
+The interface items shall have an *interface-type* which is one of the
+following and nothing else:
+
+* *configuration-option*
+
+* *define*
+
+* *enum*
+
+* *function*
+
+* *header*
+
+* *macro*
+
+* *register-block*
+
+* *structure*
+
+* *typedef*
+
+* *union*
+
+* *variable*
+
+.. _ReqEngInterfaceApplicationConfig:
+
+Interface - Application Configuration
+-------------------------------------
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ The application configuration items shall have the following attribute
+ specializations:
+
+ type
+ The type value shall be *interface*.
+
+ interface-category
+ The interface category value shall be *application-configuration*.
+
+ interface-type
+ The interface type value shall be *configuration-option*.
+
+ link
+ There shall be a link to a higher level requirement.
+
+ text
+ The application configuration requirement.
+
+ configuration-category:
+ A category to which this application configuration option belongs.
+
+ define:
+ The name of the configuration define.
+
+ data-type:
+ The data type of the configuration define.
+
+ value-range:
+ The range of valid values.
+
+ default-value:
+ The default value.
+
+ description:
+ The description of the application configuration. The description
+ should focus on the average use-case. It should not cover potential
+ problems, constraints, obscure use-cases, corner cases and everything
+ which makes matters complicated.
+
+ note:
+ Notes for this application configuration. The notes should explain
+ everything which was omitted from the description. It should cover all
+ the details.
+
+.. _ReqEngTestProcedure:
+
+Test Procedure
+--------------
+
+Test procedures shall be executed by the Qualification Toolchain.
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ The test procedure items shall have the following attribute
+ specializations:
+
+ type
+ The type value shall be *test-procedure*.
+
+ text
+ The purpose of this test procedure.
+
+ platform
+ There shall be links to validation platform requirements.
+
+ steps
+ The test procedure steps. Could be a list of key-value pairs. The key
+ is the step name and the value is a description of the actions
+ performed in this step.
+
+.. _ReqEngTestSuite:
+
+Test Suite
+----------
+
+Test suites shall use the :ref:`RTEMS Test Framework <RTEMSTestFramework>`.
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ The test suite items shall have the following attribute specializations:
+
+ type
+ The type value shall be *test-suite*.
+
+ text
+ The test suite description.
+
+.. _ReqEngTestCase:
+
+Test Case
+---------
+
+Test cases shall use the :ref:`RTEMS Test Framework <RTEMSTestFramework>`.
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ The test case items shall have the following attribute specializations:
+
+ type
+ The type value shall be *test-case*.
+
+ link
+ The link to the requirement validated by this test case or no links if
+ this is a unit or integration test case.
+
+ ref
+ If this is a unit test case, then a reference to the :term:`software
+ item` under test shall be provided. If this is an integration test
+ case, then a reference to the integration under test shall be provided.
+ The integration is identified by its Doxygen group name.
+
+ text
+ A short description of the test case.
+
+ inputs
+ The inputs to execute the test case.
+
+ outputs
+ The expected outputs.
+
+ The test case code may be also contained in the test case specification
+ item in a *code* attribute. This is subject to discussion on the RTEMS
+ mailing list. Alternatively, the test code could be placed directly in
+ source files. A method is required to find the test case specification of
+ a test case code and vice versa.
+
+.. _ReqEngResAndPerf:
+
+Resources and Performance
+-------------------------
+
+Normally, resource and performance requirements are formulated like this:
+
+* The resource U shall need less than V storage units.
+
+* The operation Y shall complete within X time units.
+
+Such statements are difficult to make for a software product like RTEMS which
+runs on many different target platforms in various configurations. So, the
+performance requirements of RTEMS shall be stated in terms of benchmarks. The
+benchmarks are run on the project-specific target platform and configuration.
+The results obtained by the benchmark runs are reported in a human readable
+presentation. The application designer can then use the benchmark results to
+determine if its system performance requirements are met. The benchmarks shall
+be executed under different environment conditions, e.g. varying cache states
+(dirty, empty, valid) and system bus load generated by other processors. The
+application designer shall have the ability to add additional environment
+conditions, e.g. system bus load by DMA engines or different system bus
+arbitration schemes.
+
+To catch resource and performance regressions via test suite runs there shall be
+a means to specify threshold values for the measured quantities. The threshold
+values should be provided for each validation platform. How this can be done
+and if the threshold values are maintained by the RTEMS Project is subject to
+discussion.
+
+.. _ReqEngTrace:
+
+Traceability of Specification Items
+===================================
+
+The standard |E10-06| demands that requirements shall be under configuration
+management, backwards-traceable and forward-traceable. Requirements are a
+specialization of specification items in RTEMS.
+
+.. _ReqEngTraceHistory:
+
+History of Specification Items
+------------------------------
+
+The RTEMS specification items should placed in the RTEMS sources using Git for
+version control. The history of specification items can be traced with Git.
+Special commit procedures for changes in specification item files should be
+established. For example, it should be allowed to change only one
+specification item per commit. A dedicated Git commit message format may be
+used as well, e.g. use of ``Approved-by:`` or ``Reviewed-by:`` lines which
+indicate an agreed statement (similar to the
+`Linux kernel patch submission guidelines <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest//process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes>`_).
+Git commit procedures may be ensured through a server-side pre-receive hook.
+The history of requirements may be also added to the specification items
+directly in a ``revision`` attribute. This would make it possible to generate
+the history information for documents without having the Git repository
+available, e.g. from an RTEMS source release archive.
+
+.. _ReqEngTraceBackward:
+
+Backward Traceability of Specification Items
+--------------------------------------------
+
+Providing backward traceability of specification items means that we must be
+able to find the corresponding higher level specification item for each refined
+specification item. This is a standard Doorstop feature.
+
+.. _ReqEngTraceForward:
+
+Forward Traceability of Specification Items
+-------------------------------------------
+
+Providing forward traceability of specification items means that we must be
+able to find all the refined specification items for each higher level
+specification item. This is a standard Doorstop feature. The links from
+parent to child specification items are implicitly defined by links from a
+child item to a parent item.
+
+.. _ReqEngTraceReqArchDesign:
+
+Traceability between Software Requirements, Architecture and Design
+-------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+The software requirements are implemented in Doorstop compatible YAML files.
+The software architecture and design is written in Doxygen markup. Doxygen
+markup is used throughout all header and source files. A Doxygen filter
+program may be provided to place Doxygen markup in assembler files. The
+software architecture is documented via Doxygen groups. Each Doxygen group
+name should have a project-specific name and the name should be unique within
+the project, e.g. RTEMSTopLevel\ MidLevel\ LowLevel. The link from a Doxygen
+group to its parent group is realized through the `@ingroup` special command.
+The link from a Doxygen group or software component to the corresponding
+requirement is realized through a `@satisfy{req}`
+`custom command <http://www.doxygen.nl/manual/custcmd.html>`_
+which needs the identifier of the requirement as its one and only parameter.
+Only links to parents are explicitly given in the Doxygen markup. The links
+from a parent to its children are only implicitly specified via the link from a
+child to its parent. So, a tool must process all files to get the complete
+hierarchy of software requirements, architecture and design. Links from a
+software component to another software component are realized through automatic
+Doxygen references or the ``@ref`` and ``@see`` special commands.
+
+.. _ReqEngValidation:
+
+Requirement Validation
+======================
+
+The validation of each requirement shall be accomplished by one or more of
+the following methods and nothing else:
+
+* *By test*: A :ref:`ReqEngTestCase` specification item is provided to
+ demonstrate that the requirement is satisfied when the software product is
+ executed on the target platform.
+
+* *By analysis*: A statement is provided how the requirement is met, by
+ analysing static properties of the software product.
+
+* *By inspection*: A statement is provided how the requirement is met, by
+ inspection of the :term:`source code`.
+
+* *By review of design*: A rationale is provided to demonstrate how the
+ qualification requirement is satisfied implicitly by the software design.
+
+Validation by test is strongly recommended. The choice of any other validation
+method shall be strongly justified. The requirements author is obligated to
+provide the means to validate the requirement with detailed instructions.
+
+.. topic:: Doorstop
+
+ For an item in a parent document it is checked that at least one item in a
+ child document has a link to it. For example a child document could
+ contain validation items. With this feature you can check that all
+ requirements are covered by at least one validation item.
+
+ The requirement validation by analysis, by inspection, and by design
+ specification items shall have the following attribute specializations:
+
+ type
+ The type attribute value shall be *validation-by-analysis*,
+ *validation-by-inspection*, or *validation-by-review-of-design*.
+
+ link
+ There shall be exactly one link to the validated requirement.
+
+ text
+ The statement or rational of the requirement validation.
+
+Requirement Management
+======================
+
+Change Control Board
+--------------------
+
+Working with requirements usually involves a Change Control Board
+(:term:`CCB`). The CCB of the RTEMS Project is the
+`RTEMS developer mailing list <https://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>`_.
+
+There are the following actors involved:
+
+* *RTEMS users*: Everyone using the RTEMS real-time operating system to design,
+ develop and build an application on top of it.
+
+* *RTEMS developers*: The persons developing and maintaining RTEMS. They write
+ patches to add or modify code, requirements, tests and documentation.
+
+* *RTEMS maintainers*: They are listed in the
+ `MAINTAINERS <https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/MAINTAINERS>`_ file and have
+ write access to the project repositories.
+
+Adding and changing requirements follows the normal patch review process. The
+normal patch review process is described in the
+`RTEMS User Manual <https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/user/support/contrib.html#patch-review-process>`_.
+Reviews and comments may be submitted by anyone, but a maintainer review is
+required to approve *significant* changes. In addition for significant
+changes, there should be at least one reviewer with a sufficient independence
+from the author which proposes a new requirement or a change of an existing
+requirement. Working in another company on different projects is sufficiently
+independent. RTEMS maintainers do not know all the details, so they trust in
+general people with experience on a certain platform. Sometimes no review
+comments may appear in a reasonable time frame, then an implicit agreement to
+the proposed changes is assumed. Patches can be sent at anytime, so
+controlling changes in RTEMS requires a permanent involvement on the RTEMS
+developer mailing list.
+
+For a qualification of RTEMS according to certain standards, the requirements
+may be approved by an RTEMS user. The approval by RTEMS users is not the
+concern of the RTEMS Project, however, the RTEMS Project should enable RTEMS
+users to manage the approval of requirements easily. This information may be
+also used by a independent authority which comes into play with an Independent
+Software Verification and Validation (:term:`ISVV`). It could be used to
+select a subset of requirements, e.g. look only at the ones approved by a
+certain user. RTEMS users should be able to reference the determinative
+content of requirements, test procedures, test cases and justification reports
+in their own documentation. Changes in the determinative content should
+invalidate all references to previous versions.
+
+Add a Requirement
+-----------------
+
+.. image:: ../images/eng/req-add.*
+ :scale: 70
+ :align: center
+
+.. _ReqEngModifyRequirement:
+
+Modify a Requirement
+--------------------
+
+.. image:: ../images/eng/req-modify.*
+ :scale: 70
+ :align: center
+
+Mark a Requirement as Obsolete
+------------------------------
+
+Requirements shall be never removed. They shall be marked as obsolete. This
+ensures that requirement identifiers are not reused. The procedure to obsolete
+a requirement is the same as the one to :ref:`modify a requirement
+<ReqEngModifyRequirement>`.
+
+Tooling
+=======
+
+Tool Requirements
+-----------------
+
+To manage requirements some tool support is helpful. Here is a list of
+requirements for the tool:
+
+* The tool shall be open source.
+
+* The tool should be actively maintained during the initial phase of the RTEMS
+ requirements specification.
+
+* The tool shall use plain text storage (no binary formats, no database).
+
+* The tool shall support version control via Git.
+
+* The tool should export the requirements in a human readable form using the
+ Sphinx documentation framework.
+
+* The tool shall support traceability of requirements to items external to the
+ tool.
+
+* The tool shall support traceability between requirements.
+
+* The tool shall support custom requirement attributes.
+
+* The tool should ensure that there are no cyclic dependencies between
+ requirements.
+
+* The tool should provide an export to :term:`ReqIF`.
+
+Tool Evaluation
+---------------
+
+During an evaluation phase the following tools were considered:
+
+* `aNimble <https://sourceforge.net/projects/nimble/>`_
+* :term:`Doorstop`
+* `OSRMT <https://github.com/osrmt/osrmt>`_
+* `Papyrus <https://www.eclipse.org/papyrus/>`_
+* `ProR <https://www.eclipse.org/rmf/pror/>`_
+* `ReqIF Studio <https://formalmind.com/tools/studio/>`_
+* `Requirement Heap <https://sourceforge.net/projects/reqheap/>`_
+* `rmToo <http://rmtoo.florath.net/>`_
+
+The tools aNimble, OSRMT and Requirement Heap were not selected since they use
+a database. The tools Papyrus, ProR and ReqIF are Eclipse based and use
+complex XML files for data storage. They were difficult to use and lack good
+documentation/tutorials. The tools rmToo and Doorstop turned out to be the
+best candidates to manage requirements in the RTEMS Project. The Doorstop tool
+was selected as the first candidate mainly due a recommendation by an RTEMS
+user.
+
+.. _ReqEngDoorstop:
+
+Selected Tool - Doorstop
+------------------------
+
+:term:`Doorstop` is a requirements management tool. It has a modern,
+object-oriented and well-structured implementation in Python 3.6 under the
+LGPLv3 license. It uses a continuous integration build with style checkers,
+static analysis, documentation checks, code coverage, unit test and integration
+tests. In 2019, the project was actively maintained. Pull requests for minor
+improvements and new features were reviewed and integrated within days. Each
+requirement is contained in a single file in :term:`YAML` format. Requirements
+are organized in documents and can be linked to each other
+:cite:`Browning:2014:RequirementsManagement`.
+
+Doorstop consists of three main parts
+
+* a stateless command line tool `doorstop`,
+
+* a file format with a pre-defined set of attributes (YAML), and
+
+* a primitive GUI tool (not intended to be used).
+
+For RTEMS, its scope will be extended to manage specifications in general. The
+primary reason for selecting Doorstop as the requirements management tool for
+the RTEMS Project is its data format which allows a high degree of
+customization. Doorstop uses a directed, acyclic graph of items. The items are
+files in YAML format. Each item has a set of
+`standard attributes <https://doorstop.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference/item/>`_
+(key-value pairs).
+
+The use case for the standard attributes is requirements management. However,
+Doorstop is capable to manage custom attributes as well. We will heavily use
+custom attributes for the specification items. Enabling Doorstop to effectively
+use custom attributes was done specifically for the RTEMS Project in several
+patch sets.
+
+A key feature of Doorstop is the `fingerprint of items
+<https://doorstop.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference/item/#reviewed>`_.
+For the RTEMS Project, the fingerprint hash algorithm was changed from MD5 to
+SHA256. In 2019, it can be considered cryptographically secure. The
+fingerprint should cover the normative values of an item, e.g. comments etc. are
+not included. The fingerprint helps RTEMS users to track the significant
+changes in the requirements (in contrast to all the changes visible in Git). As
+an example use case, a user may want to assign a project-specific status to
+specification items. This can be done with a table which contains columns for
+
+1. the UID of the item,
+
+2. the fingerprint, and
+
+3. the project-specific status.
+
+Given the source code of RTEMS (which includes the specification items) and this
+table, it can be determined which items are unchanged and which have another
+status (e.g. unknown, changed, etc.).