Resolve #7 Audit Findings (14.04.2026) #652

Activity

1. aschemmel-tech

   added the

   Epic

   issue type on Apr 13, 2026
2. aschemmel-tech commented on Apr 13, 2026

   

   aschemmel-tech

   on Apr 13, 2026

   Last edited by aschemmel-tech

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Still open (development processes findings):

   • Action_8 "requirements": Tool is not yet implemented to create the hash attribute. - needed for change impact analysis tooling: see Change Impact analysis tool #535 Change impact tooling corrections #827
   • 6-7.4.7 "safety mgt (architecture)" - about component qualification (covered in safety mgt: https://eclipse-score.github.io/module_template/main/module/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.html#oss-sub-component-qualification-plan defines that always for a qualification of a pre-developed SW component requirements have to be created and integration tests to be performed to verify these requirements (following our standard process) which should be sufficient to cover iso 26262 part 8 clause 12).
   • Action_64 "safety analysis": For Persistency: The first assumption (handle the unavailability of persistency) and the third assumption (the application may not block persistency (make it available) are inconsistent. - @aschemmel-tech comment: while this was discovered during the audit of requirements process, the root cause lies within the safety analysis. Changing the safety analysis docs(safety): resolve inconsistent persistency AoUs (Action_64) persistency#442 now https://eclipse-score.github.io/persistency/main/module/manuals/safety_manual.html#aou_req__persistency__error_handling is the only AoU
   • Action_72 "safety analysis (safety mgt)": The Confirmation Review checklists need to refer to ISO-26262. - References have only partially been added. Action_72 remains for all checklists. - see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/folder_templates/platform/docs/safety_mgt/platform_safety_analysis_fdr.html#doc__platform_safety_analysis_fdr and https://eclipse-score.github.io/module_template/main/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_analysis_fdr.html
   • Action_27 "implementation": No coding guideline for RUST exists. Coding standards need to be defined. -> https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/development/rust/coding_guidelines.html - updated by improve coding guidelines by add CodeQL and clippy/rustc options score#3202
     • Coding guidelines are integrated, but PR for make it real not. feat: add Cargo.toml lint profiles for relaxed and strict baselines score_rust_policies#11
   • Action_42 "implementation": The acceptance criteria for the static code analysis (static, dynamic) shall be defined. -> Add to verification plan
     • It could not yet be identified what the concrete analysis rules of CodeQL are. This needs to be clarified and documented to close this item.
   • Action_51 "verification": It needs to be clarified where the reference system is located physically (affecting e.g. access rights).
     • Still open today.
   • Action_86 "verification": An example of a test report needs to be shown.
     • Auto generation of verification report currently in implementation state by docs-as-code team.
   • Action_87 "verification": The ISO requirements shall be addressed by the process description. better description in guidance
   • "Specification of the technical safety requirements (AoU)" shown as "started" in report should be "ok" - done in publishable version (R087 V3 R1)
3. aschemmel-tech

   added this to PRC - Process Development Communityon Apr 13, 2026
4. aschemmel-tech

   added this to the v1.0.0 milestone on Apr 13, 2026
5. aschemmel-tech

   moved this to Backlog in PRC - Process Development Communityon Apr 13, 2026
6. aschemmel-tech commented on May 19, 2026

   

   aschemmel-tech

   on May 19, 2026

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   First DoD point covered with #685
7. masc2023

   assigned

   aschemmel-tech

   on Sep 17, 2026
8. aschemmel-tech

   added a sub-issue on Oct 12, 2026

   • Safety Audit 8 preparation #828