Score 2774 traceability by FScholPer · Pull Request #484 · eclipse-score/docs-as-code

FScholPer · 2026-04-13T13:44:39Z

Frank Scholter Peres frank.scholter_peres@mercedes-benz.com, Mercedes-Benz Tech Innovation GmbH
Provider Information

github-actions · 2026-04-13T13:45:14Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //src:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.4.2) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: ce0886df-763b-4f7b-bd62-ff5ce5642cb8
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
WARNING: Target pattern parsing failed.
ERROR: Skipping '//src:license-check': no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
ERROR: no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
INFO: Elapsed time: 5.167s
INFO: 0 processes.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
ERROR: Build failed. Not running target

github-actions · 2026-04-13T13:49:05Z

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

a-zw · 2026-04-13T14:55:08Z

+        help="Fail if a testcase references an unknown requirement ID",
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--json-output",


What is the json output for?

It generates a summary of the result as json. The parameter is just to change the path

Sure, but what for? I see two use cases:

Generate an overview in the documentation.

CI quality gate.

Neither of them uses this json file.

If there is some use for it, then there should be a Bazel rule/target to consume it. However, it looks like this code should rather be removed because nobody needs it.

a-zw · 2026-04-13T14:57:08Z

+        )
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--needs-json",


I think this should simply be mandatory and there is no need to "search" for needs.json.

Thats just if the path differs to increase flexibility

I don't think it is a good idea to guess Bazel paths. Make it mandatory and explicit to loosen coupling between Script and Bazel.

AlexanderLanin

see discussion in #485

FScholPer · 2026-04-16T08:42:49Z

closed #485 @AlexanderLanin can you please check again?

MaximilianSoerenPollak

Some comments for things I noticed.

Will take another look after lunch.

Overall looks like genuine good work that we can build upon.

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2026-04-16T11:13:28Z

Also a general thing.

If there is any 'substantial' or partial generation from AI please add the disclaimer in the header.
According to 'eclipse' something to the lines of this should be fine:

# ╓                                                          ╖
# ║ Some portions generated by <AI Model Name>               ║
# ╙                                                          ╜

Model name meaning like 'Gpt' or 'Copilot' or 'Claude' etc.

FScholPer · 2026-04-16T13:44:09Z

Also a general thing.

If there is any 'substantial' or partial generation from AI please add the disclaimer in the header. According to 'eclipse' something to the lines of this should be fine:
# ╓                                                          ╖
# ║ Some portions generated by <AI Model Name>               ║
# ╙                                                          ╜
Model name meaning like 'Gpt' or 'Copilot' or 'Claude' etc.

I will add. But we should think about using tools like https://github.com/git-ai-project/git-ai in general

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2026-04-16T14:18:17Z

I will add. But we should think about using tools like https://github.com/git-ai-project/git-ai in general

Probably might be worth a look to see if we could use that. I can bring it up in infra.

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2026-04-16T14:25:44Z

@FScholPer I would propose that I can take these Ideas & Proposals that you have made in this PR and re-implement them into Docs-As-Code so they fit a better architecturally and makes sense with how testcases etc. actually behave & are created inside the DaC frameworks that deal with it.

I fear it would be a lot more work to merge this PR and then rebuild it / change it quiet heavily later when we want to integrate it.

Do you think this would make sense and is a good way to move forward with this issue?

@AlexanderLanin @a-zw please also advice here in your opinion what would be a good approach.

AlexanderLanin · 2026-04-17T11:03:34Z

to me it sounds like we need to discuss the goals first, then how to achieve it. Thats the reason why this mixes extensions with custom executables and no-one really understands why and how it should look like.

Co-authored-by: Maximilian Sören Pollak <maximilian.pollak@qorix.com> Signed-off-by: Frank Scholter Peres(MBTI) <145544737+FScholPer@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Andreas Zwinkau <95761648+a-zw@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Frank Scholter Peres(MBTI) <145544737+FScholPer@users.noreply.github.com>

FScholPer · 2026-04-17T11:25:37Z

to me it sounds like we need to discuss the goals first, then how to achieve it. Thats the reason why this mixes extensions with custom executables and no-one really understands why and how it should look like.

Goals for where 1. check linking of requirements to code/tests in ci 2. add dashboards in all modules. Or what goals do you have in mind?

AlexanderLanin · 2026-04-17T15:56:09Z

@FScholPer we've discussed this PR, unfortunately we missed you. So here is our interpretation. Let's have a call next week.

The goals here are:

unify statistics/metrics across modules
provide thresholds for acceptable values, especially for CI
provide a dedicated executable / bazel target??

Here is an idea, which simplifies the design:

What do you think? (May be not self explanatory)
Do you want to give that a try?

FScholPer requested review from AlexanderLanin, MaximilianSoerenPollak, dcalavrezo-qorix and nradakovic as code owners April 13, 2026 13:44

FScholPer linked an issue Apr 13, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

Improvement: Introduce traceability coverage checker and CI reporting mode eclipse-score/score#2774

Open

github-project-automation bot added this to INF - Infrastructure Community Apr 13, 2026

github-project-automation bot moved this to Backlog in INF - Infrastructure Community Apr 13, 2026

a-zw suggested changes Apr 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

AlexanderLanin requested changes Apr 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

MaximilianSoerenPollak reviewed Apr 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

a-zw suggested changes Apr 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/reference/commands.md Outdated

Comment thread docs/how-to/test_to_doc_links.rst

Comment thread docs/how-to/test_to_doc_links.rst

Comment thread docs/how-to/test_to_doc_links.rst Outdated

Comment thread scripts_bazel/traceability_coverage.py

Comment thread .gitignore

FScholPer and others added 7 commits April 17, 2026 11:07

feat(traceability): add coverage checker and reporting docs

15743fc

add coverage check

58ae80d

fix lint

4e9c60e

refactoring the coverage, metrics and dashboard

0ec5217

add generic filters

764da8d

Update src/extensions/score_metamodel/traceability_metrics.py

ec2e994

Co-authored-by: Maximilian Sören Pollak <maximilian.pollak@qorix.com> Signed-off-by: Frank Scholter Peres(MBTI) <145544737+FScholPer@users.noreply.github.com>

Apply suggestions from code review

a364257

Co-authored-by: Andreas Zwinkau <95761648+a-zw@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Frank Scholter Peres(MBTI) <145544737+FScholPer@users.noreply.github.com>

FScholPer force-pushed the score-2774-traceability branch from 4585a27 to a364257 Compare April 17, 2026 11:08

readd genai headers

ecd1caf

Conversation

FScholPer commented Apr 13, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

License Check Results

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

a-zw Apr 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FScholPer Apr 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

a-zw Apr 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

a-zw Apr 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FScholPer Apr 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

a-zw Apr 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FScholPer commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

FScholPer commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin commented Apr 17, 2026

Uh oh!

FScholPer commented Apr 17, 2026

Uh oh!

AlexanderLanin commented Apr 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

github-actions bot commented Apr 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading