Open stellarpower opened 1 month ago
Hi @stellarpower,
The ReqIF conversion is not an easy task, and from time to time, there is always a user who has something in their ReqIF that we have previously not seen. From looking at the error location, it is most likely that your file has numeric spec attribute definitions (for example, of type INTEGER or REAL), and this is not handled by StrictDoc yet.
The error message could be improved indeed. In order to fix this issue for your case, I would need a good MRE ReqIF example that you are using with StrictDoc. Is there a chance you could send me an anonymized ReqIF example without any sensitive data but still the one that reproduces this issue?
Thanks, and totally understood. Standards are great except when they aren't standardised and just a free-for-all.
Interestingly I'm not seeing the same problems when reading in the file programatically using the python package. This is where the anonymisation script is helpful ;)
ReqIFv10 - Anonymised.reqif.txt
This may not be entirely minimal, but it's a small dummy project export from Doors anyway and you know what you're looking for. I did see those numeric definitions before so expect that's probably it. Don't know why they exist TBH, needing to specify what a boolean or a string is within the requirements and assign it a UUID seems a bit excessive to me. But ours (well, mine) is not to question why!
Cheers
Requirements software is new to me, so am limited in how much useful information I can provide. I'm simply looking to visualise the data in an export I've been provided.
Don't know if this belongs in the ReqIF package or as part of strictdoc proper; feel free to move if appropriate. I guess if this is an unsupported feature, at the least it'd be nice to catch it and then print a user-readable message explaining what feature isn't supported.
Thanks