Show requirements statistics and test results in documentation by eelcoem · Pull Request #77 · eclipse-score/lifecycle

eelcoem · 2026-02-16T08:50:09Z

No description provided.

github-actions · 2026-02-16T08:50:52Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //: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: fb2d99d6-b18a-41fc-a43b-f0cb40f0be9a
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
WARNING: For repository 'score_tooling', the root module requires module version score_tooling@1.1.0, but got score_tooling@1.1.2-RC in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'score_rust_policies', the root module requires module version score_rust_policies@0.0.3, but got score_rust_policies@0.0.5 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (40 packages loaded, 9 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (86 packages loaded, 9 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (140 packages loaded, 1963 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (148 packages loaded, 5178 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (152 packages loaded, 7758 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (160 packages loaded, 7817 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (160 packages loaded, 7817 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (160 packages loaded, 7817 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 9829 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (165 packages loaded, 9955 targets configured).
[12 / 16] checking cached actions
[14 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox
[15 / 16] Building license.check.license_check.jar (); 0s disk-cache, multiplex-worker
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 26.047s, Critical Path: 2.47s
INFO: 16 processes: 12 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 16 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

github-actions · 2026-02-16T08:52:41Z

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

eelcoem · 2026-02-16T09:20:24Z

@ Reviewers: After merging, it will look like this: https://eelcoem.github.io/lifecycle/main/statistics.html

docs/statistics.rst

paulquiring

looks good

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2026-02-17T09:46:22Z

MODULE.bazel

Not having the required properties inside your tests will result in errors / crashes in future versions if I remember correctly.
For the 2.3.3 you using here I think this might still be fine. But you will not have any links.
The links are only generated through 'PartiallyVerifies' & 'FullyVerifies' attributes.
If those are not at your tests we can't link it, just so you are aware.

Thanks, yeah I think the upgrade to score_docs_as_code 3.0.0 should be a separate PR

Updated to 3.0.1 already and adapted accordingly

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2026-02-17T09:54:26Z

MODULE.bazel

@@ -28,10 +28,16 @@ bazel_dep(name = "googletest", version = "1.17.0.bcr.1")



Is there a reason to not upgrade further?
As for example Platform & Tooling are also not on newest version

I didn't upgrade score_docs_as_code to v3 as that would break the build, but the bump to 2.3.3 was necessary because 2.3.0 didn't allow linking test results in the pipeline. As for the other requirements, I think there is no reason not to bump them, I'll have a look

Bumped versions. Also updated to docs-as-code 3.0.1 and adapted requirements as necessary

PiotrKorkus · 2026-02-17T09:43:28Z

.github/workflows/test_and_docs.yml

rename file to test_and_docs, as workflow now does both

PiotrKorkus · 2026-02-17T09:45:10Z

.github/workflows/test_and_docs.yml

@@ -29,7 +29,12 @@ on:
    types: [checks_requested]

 jobs:
+  unit-tests:
+    uses: ./.github/workflows/tests.yml
+    secrets: inherit
  build-docs:


add a job to do docs check, take a look how it is done in docs-as-code:
https://github.com/eclipse-score/docs-as-code/blob/main/.github/workflows/test_and_docs.yml

added docs-verify step

PiotrKorkus · 2026-02-17T09:54:14Z

docs/conf.py

take a look into rglob method from pathlib, no need to mix it with os https://docs.python.org/3/library/pathlib.html#pathlib.Path.rglob

You can simplify it into something like

from itertools import chain for log_file in chain((ws_root / "bazel-testlogs").rglob("test.log"), (ws_root / "tests-report").rglob("test.log")): ...

Thanks for the tip, changed as suggested

PiotrKorkus · 2026-02-17T09:56:42Z

src/health_monitoring_lib/cpp/tests/health_monitor_test.cpp

general comment to all cpp tests:

If its requirements-based why there is no mapping to the requirement that is tested by this testcase?

All tests that are suppose to be parsed by the testlinker are required to either have 'PartiallyVerified' or 'FullyVerified' as properties that links existing requirements

Right now there are only dummy requirements, so I didn't link any yet. I planned to either link requirements or adapt the TestType as soon as we have requirements, should I do it differently?

if there are no real requirements just go with explorative-testing derivation technique and update test type accordingly.

You have to test then if docs-as-code breaks in the version you have.
Not sure anymore if it is demanding the correct signature there already or only in 3.0

changed to explorative-testing and interface-test

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2026-02-17T10:00:07Z

docs/conf.py

+
+
+def setup(app):
+    app.add_directive("display-test-logs", DisplayTestLogs)


This might be really slow at some point depending on how large the logs are and how many of these directives you have.

Yes I would kick this out as soon as it slows down the doc build significantly, but I think it's useful to have as long as it's feasible

pawelrutkaq · 2026-02-17T11:22:30Z

This will imho have to wait a bit for a resolution on the general issues doc + cov - > eclipse-score/cicd-workflows#63

a-zw · 2026-02-17T13:54:27Z

BUILD

+        "@score_platform//:needs_json",
        "@score_process//:needs_json",  # This allows linking to requirements (wp__requirements_comp, etc.) from the process_description repository.
    ],
    source_dir = "docs",


I would have expected some like deps = [":test_logs"], here.

Yeah I suppose it will work either way, decided to go with this approach as it is already done like this in persistency

Empting Eelco (ETAS-ECM/XPC-Fe2) added 2 commits February 16, 2026 08:48

Add showing test results

4bf06a6

Reenable starpls

6a2a772

eelcoem temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 16, 2026 08:50 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Fix workflow file

5ad7de9

eelcoem temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 16, 2026 08:53 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Minor adjustments

2f1334c

eelcoem had a problem deploying to workflow-approval February 16, 2026 09:14 — with GitHub Actions Failure

eelcoem had a problem deploying to workflow-approval February 16, 2026 09:14 — with GitHub Actions Error

paulquiring reviewed Feb 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

docs/statistics.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Address reviewer comment, add test logs to docc

3559953

eelcoem temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 16, 2026 12:19 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Fix failing formatter

b739769

eelcoem temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 16, 2026 12:24 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

paulquiring approved these changes Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

MaximilianSoerenPollak reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

FScholPer requested a review from NicolasFussberger February 17, 2026 09:49

MaximilianSoerenPollak reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

PiotrKorkus reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

MaximilianSoerenPollak reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

NicolasFussberger approved these changes Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

a-zw reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

Address reviewer comments

4bbe788

eelcoem had a problem deploying to workflow-approval February 18, 2026 09:44 — with GitHub Actions Failure

eelcoem had a problem deploying to workflow-approval February 18, 2026 09:44 — with GitHub Actions Error

Merge branch 'main' into eelcoem/add_test_results_to_docs

e442a4e

eelcoem temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 18, 2026 13:28 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Fix failing checks

b45019b

eelcoem temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 18, 2026 13:36 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

		@@ -28,10 +28,16 @@ bazel_dep(name = "googletest", version = "1.17.0.bcr.1")



		def setup(app):
		app.add_directive("display-test-logs", DisplayTestLogs)

Conversation

eelcoem commented Feb 16, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 16, 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 Feb 16, 2026

Uh oh!

eelcoem commented Feb 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

paulquiring left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawelrutkaq commented Feb 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

Comments

github-actions bot commented Feb 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading