[PATCH v2] eng: Requirements counting shall start at zero

[Gedare Bloom]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:16 AM Frank Kühndel <
frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de> wrote:

> Hello Joel,
>
> On 12/11/20 3:49 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 8:41 AM Frank Kuehndel
> > <frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de
> > <mailto:frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> >
> >     From: Frank Kühndel <frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de
> >     <mailto:frank.kuehndel at embedded-brains.de>>
> >
> >     ---
> >      eng/req/req-for-req.rst | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >      1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> >
> >     diff --git a/eng/req/req-for-req.rst b/eng/req/req-for-req.rst
> >     index 9225e95..dcc4c11 100644
> >     --- a/eng/req/req-for-req.rst
> >     +++ b/eng/req/req-for-req.rst
> >     @@ -308,6 +308,27 @@ spec:/classic/task/create-err-invname
> >
> >          ...
> >
> >     +If requirements or the YAML files which contain them are to be
> >     numbered,
> >     +the numbering shall start with 0. For example:
> >
> >     +
> >     +.. code-block:: none
> >     +
> >     +    weak-alias-0.yml
> >     +    weak-alias-1.yml
> >     +
> >     +Smaller numbers shall be prefixed with 0 to the same count of digits
> >     +as the largest number. For example:
> >
> >
> > When one goes from 99 to 100 requirements and didn't anticipate having
> > that many, does this mean all the files will have to be renamed?
>
> I can change the text to what Gedare Bloom suggested: "If we know the
> max count (N) ahead of time, ..."
>
> Just from my experience with the requirements for the basedefs, when I
> create the requirements for an operation, I know the number I end up
> with before checking them in. The issue we discuss would only cause
> trouble if later more requirements for the same operation must be added.
> This is not totally unlikely but it means that one actually has 9 and
> then need a 10th one.
>
> >
> > Should we start with a minimum of three or four digits? What would drive
> > the number of requirements in a set? How large of a functional area will
> > a single numbered set contain?
> >
> > I'm just wondering if it is simpler to just have 001 as a minimum.
>
> I think that 99 requirements for a single operation are really out of
> scope. That will hopefully never ever happen. Even 9 is already a lot.
> Also it is rather advisable to adapt the names of the requirements to
> indicate the purpose. The numbering is more for the case that there are
> two or more requirements on the same topic (like on handling the same
> bad input argument).
>
>   my-function-0
>   my-function-1
>   my-function-global-side-effect
>   my-function-bad-argument-x-error-handling
>   my-function-bad-argument-y-error-handling
>   my-function-called-in-wrong-state
>

This actually means there is a requirement for unnumbered names as well.

Would it be better to explicitly define all requirements numbered and use
-0, in case they should be extended later, or perhaps to start numbering
without a number as 0 "implied" and numbers begin with 1?



>
> My opinion is that defining whether we start counting with 0 or with 1
> makes sense. Everything else seems to me a bit like solving theoretical
> problems.
>
> >
> >     +
> >     +.. code-block:: none
> >     +
> >     +    alias-00.yml
> >     +    alias-01.yml
> >     +    alias-02.yml
> >     +    ...
> >     +    alias-09.yml
> >     +    alias-10.yml
> >     +    alias-11.yml
> >     +
> >      Conflict Free Requirements
> >      --------------------------
> >
> >     --
> >     2.26.2
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     devel mailing list
> >     devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>
> >     http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >     <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>
> >
>
> Greetings
> Frank
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20201211/417efb57/attachment.html>