R-T3.4-5: The defect-prediction tool MUST provide a set of rules that identify defect-prone scripts and an interpretation of the final decision

[stefanodallapalma]

ID	R-T3.4-5
Section	WP3: Methodology and Quality Assurance Requirements
Type	FUNCTIONAL_SUITABILITY
User Story	As an Operations Engineer/QoS Engineer/Release Manager I want the tool to show me an interpretation of the final decision for the classification of a script as defective.
Requirement	The defect-prediction tool must provide a set of rules that identify defect-prone scripts and an interpretation of the final decision.
Extended Description	The user must have the opportunity to prioritize the actions to solve defects.
Priority	Must have
Affected Tools	DEFECT_PRED_TOOL
Means of Verification	Direct implementation on IDE, feature checklist, case-study

This requirement replaces requirement #4. The previous requirement stated that the defect prediction tool could provide a defect threat level to architecture elements and predict threat-level defects under certain infrastructure assumptions. This is a typical regression problem that requires to identify the number of bugs in the infrastructure establish a threat-level. It in turns requires an ontology of IaC bugs, which does not exist yet. In addition, the current defect predictor is a classification model based on Decision Tree or Random Forest. Therefore, the requirement has been changed to address its explainability by providing the user with a set of rules that identify defective-prone IaC scripts and the decision path that led to the final prediction. This requirement has also been raised by one of the industrial partners (PRQ) and therefore it’s priority changed from COULD to MUST HAVE.

[stefanodallapalma]

This features is now available from version 0.0.6.