Fix trace to external AoU for Components#654
Conversation
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-aou-linkage
branch
from
05b4439 to
42d7a06
Compare
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-aou-linkage
branch
from
42d7a06 to
e6282fb
Compare
|
discussed and agreed the move of linking to external AoU to component instead of component architetcture in process community see https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2234#discussioncomment-16582708 - and also to downgrade "fulfils" links generally from mandatory to optional (as the mandatory linking is already covered by the "belongs_to" linkage). Also included the removal of "satisfies" link from component req to feature arch view as discussed in #621 (comment) |
aschemmel-tech
requested review from
PandaeDo,
masc2023 and
pahmann
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is still a satisfied from Component requirements to feature architecture, deleted in all other documents, also not existing any more in Meta Model?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
removed the "satisfies"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks meanwhile very complex, propose to add a picture only with mandatory links to show the minimal required links.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The description is not up-to-date, at least Platform Architecture is missing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where is the platform architecture missing ? It is on the upper left site, right next to platform.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the description, not in the image
There was a problem hiding this comment.
platform architecture added to description
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The description is not up-to-date, at least Platform Architecture is missing
aschemmel-tech
force-pushed
the
aschemmel-tech-aou-linkage
branch
from
5335751 to
51555cf
Compare
|
also removed the "violates" link from platform safety analysis to feature architecture as it woul violate our deployment concept. |
3 participants
Refers: #642