Update sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the QA Plan

[idelatorre]

Please, complete section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of QA Plan about tools and the metrics covered by them.

@janWelte @cecilebraun

[idelatorre]

Please, what is the status?

[cecilebraun]

@idelatorre Do you need a complete list of the tool available today in the tool chain ? Or do you need what may be included in the feature ?

[idelatorre]

Both of them, please. A part with the tools available today and other part with the tools that may be included. Thanks

[cecilebraun]

@MariellePetitDoche Could you please check this section 5.2.2 . Thanks

[MariellePetitDoche]

§5.2.2 :

• "testing and debugging" is too low according SIL4 design "verification and validation" is more precise according CENELEC standards

-"What is the current status of this? SYSML\EFS\Eclipse Polarsys and SYSML\Classical B for final decision on OpenETCS Tools Chain not late than January 2014" : Decision has been made to start WP3 and WP4 activities based on SysML/Scade basis, which are involved in the toolchain. However, work to define an alternative fully open source chain to provide SIL4 software is encouraged. On going work is thus provided around SysML/ Classical B. Besides, selection of secondary tools is not closed, and this list is not exhaustive.

• § 5.2.2 : I do not agree with the metric proposed for papyrus and scade: T3 level has strong constraint which can not be reached by this tool, maybe T2 for the verification parts of these tools, otherwise there are just as Editor (T1). Besides as verifications shall be provided on the outputs of this tools, T3 is not necessary. Too analyse with VnV actors.

besides some are missing according to the previous list : I think Eclipse need to be T1, for EFS it depends how it is used for VnV purposes (T1 or T2), too see with VnV actors. Once again the list is not exhaustive.