From e1830638f4af88214618cdc58ea845bbe52959e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "jhr2hi@bosch.com" Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 16:34:00 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] enhance implementation checklist --- .../detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst | 17 +++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/score/component_example/docs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst b/score/component_example/docs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst index c29a73d5..4430a6ba 100644 --- a/score/component_example/docs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst +++ b/score/component_example/docs/detailed_design/chklst_impl_inspection.rst @@ -105,10 +105,19 @@ See also :need:`doc_concept__wp_inspections` for further information about revie - - - - * - IMPL_02_03 - - Are detailed design and source code consistent? - - Check if the static and dynamic design descriptions match the code (e.g. naming of elements) - and that the respective traceability is established + * - IMPL_03_01 + - Do the interface names in component documentation match the implemented interface names of the unit? + - Compare interface names used in component architecture/detailed design documentation + with public interfaces in source code (e.g. API headers, traits, public types/functions). + - + - + - + * - IMPL_03_02 + - Are detailed design and source code consistent and is the respective traceability established ? + - Check if available static and dynamic design diagrams and the textual descriptions match the code + (e.g. naming of interfaces, units, functions/operations/messages, data types). + Check if the folder/file names of the units and its source code matches the intended functionality. + For example if a unit is named "communication" it should not contain code for "data processing". - - -