[PATCH] eng: Add performance specification items

[Chris Johns]

On 26/11/20 4:08 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 7:38 AM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>>
> wrote:
> 
>     Hello,
> 
>     On 14/11/2020 12:59, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>     > On 13/11/2020 20:03, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>     >
>     >>> +Generic Non-Functional Requirement Item Type
>     >>> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     >>> +
>     >>> +This type refines the following types:
>     >>> +
>     >>> +* :ref:`SpecTypeNonFunctionalRequirementItemType` though the
>     >> through?
>     > Nice an automatically generated typo.
>     >>
>     >>> +  ``non-functional-type`` attribute if the value is
>     >>> ``build-configuration``
>     >>> +
>     >>> +* :ref:`SpecTypeNonFunctionalRequirementItemType` though the
>     >>> +  ``non-functional-type`` attribute if the value is ``constraint``
>     >>> +
>     >>> +* :ref:`SpecTypeNonFunctionalRequirementItemType` though the
>     >>> +  ``non-functional-type`` attribute if the value is ``design``
>     >>> +
>     >>> +* :ref:`SpecTypeNonFunctionalRequirementItemType` though the
>     >>> +  ``non-functional-type`` attribute if the value is ``documentation``
>     >>> +
>     >>> +* :ref:`SpecTypeNonFunctionalRequirementItemType` though the
>     >>> +  ``non-functional-type`` attribute if the value is ``interface``
>     >>> +
>     >>> +* :ref:`SpecTypeNonFunctionalRequirementItemType` though the
>     >>> +  ``non-functional-type`` attribute if the value is
>     >>> ``interface-requirement``
>     >>> +
>     >>> +* :ref:`SpecTypeNonFunctionalRequirementItemType` though the
>     >>> +  ``non-functional-type`` attribute if the value is
>     >>> ``maintainability``
>     >>> +
>     >>> +* :ref:`SpecTypeNonFunctionalRequirementItemType` though the
>     >>> +  ``non-functional-type`` attribute if the value is ``performance``
>     >>> +
>     >> Is there a specific kind of performance (metric) in mind? latency vs
>     >> throughput? Or does it not matter
>     >>
>     > In the generic non-functional requirements, the requirements text is
>     > in natural language. So, you can write whatever you want.
>     >
>     > This patch introduces a specialization for performance requirements
>     > which are expressed in limits of a sample set of some measured runtime
>     > of an operation.
>     >
>     > text: |
>     >   When a partition has exactly
>     > ${../val/performance:/params/buffer-count} free
>     >   buffers, the ${.:limit-kind} runtime of exactly
>     >   ${../val/performance:/params/sample-count} successful calls to
>     >   ${../if/get-buffer:/name} in the ${.:/environment} shall be
>     >   ${.:limit-condition}.
>     >
>     > In this item, the corresponding test code is also included.
>     >
>     > test-body:
>     >   brief: |
>     >     Get a buffer.
>     >   code: |
>     >     ctx->status = rtems_partition_get_buffer( ctx->part_many,
>     > &ctx->buffer );
>     >   description: null
> 
>     I think this can be checked in independent of the open discussion how a
>     particular performance limit is identified. The item just uses a string
>     to identify a set of performance limits. An open issue is how this
>     string is generated and what data it includes.
> 
>     I already fixed the "though" -> "through" typo.
> 
> Fine with me

And me

Chris