# Release notes of RTEMS SMP QDP release 5  
Document generated at  2024-03-01  
  
  
## SPRs solved  
  
 ### 907: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-041 - Variable not initialized in any file  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:16:05.193Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:33:25.538Z  
 Description: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-041 - Variable not initialized in any file  
  
|Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|Pointer variable not initialized in any file of the QDP. Variables:  
*LEON3_Timer_Adev  
*LEON3_Timer_Regs  
*LEON3_IrqCtrl_Adev  
*LEON3_IrqCtrl_Regs|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4850|  
  
 ### 846: RTEMS-SMP-DESIGN-VER-010 - No architectural design  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T10:36:30.397Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:28:15.994Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|What is presented as an Architectural Design is missing the expected characteristics. The design is lacking overview diagrams to shows top level packages and decomposition, and interactions between them. The design simply presents large lists of Modules, Classes and Files that do not provide any understanding of how they relate. This appears to be more of a detailed design instead.|  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Please provide an overview section in the design document to aid understanding of the architecture.|  
  
|Agreed Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|As in Recommendation / Contractor Answer.|  
  
## SPRs open  
  
 ### 926: License and copyright information incomplete  
 - Created at: 2024-01-03T14:57:27.623Z  
 - Update at: 2024-01-03T16:39:38.275Z  
 Description: The current statement in section 4.5 of the SCF of QDP 5.0 is not covering all cases of missing license and copyright information. The following files are not mentioned here, the same license conditions as mentioned in 4.5 of the SCF of QDP 5.0 are applicable to these files as well:  
  
- \rtems-6-sparc-gr712rc-smp-5ISVV\rtems-6-sparc-gr712rc-smp-5\doc\isvv\ivar\rst\source => .rst and .py  => without license information  
- \rtems-6-sparc-gr712rc-smp-5ISVV\rtems-6-sparc-gr712rc-smp-5\doc\isvv\ivar\rst => .bat, Makefile without license information  
- \rtems-6-sparc-gr712rc-smp-5ISVV\rtems-6-sparc-gr712rc-smp-5\doc\isvv\ivar\CSW-RTEMSISVV-2022-TSP-05453_1-rtems-smp-isvv-iva-test-procedures.zip => .sh without license information  
  
 ### 925: SVR broken traceability with SRS  
 - Created at: 2024-01-03T14:26:39.214Z  
 - Update at: 2024-01-03T16:40:17.442Z  
 Description: The System Verification Report (SVR) detailed in Section 4.6.1.1 are intended to establish traceability between the technical specifications and the test cases. However, It haa been noticed several inconsistencies within the traceability table. Specifically, there are test cases that do not correspond to any specific technical specification.   
  
The table needs to be updated with a full traceability.  
  
 ### 915: Incorrect indexing of Tables  
 - Created at: 2023-07-24T15:01:26.451Z  
 - Update at: 2024-01-17T16:16:06.691Z  
 Description: Currently, in several QDP docs, on the few tables that have captions or that span across more than 1 page, "Table 1" indexing is duplicated.  
E.g.:  
- SCF all table captions are indexed as "Table 1".  
- In SVR there are several tables indexed as "Table 1" despite some with different indexes in between.  
  
 ### 913: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-073 - Low power Power-down workaround  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:18:11.108Z  
 - Update at: 2024-01-03T15:44:10.621Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|""lda [%sp] 1, %g0"" is in the code as a workaround for a problem regarding low power. In the documentation of GR712RC, section 1.7.8, ""LEON3FT Cache Controller: Incorrect Bus Access After Power-Down"", it explicitly says: ""Note that the stack pointer or other cachable memory should never be used as the source operand, even if using ASI 1, since this may lead to faulty data being loaded into the data cache."" However, the stack pointer is used in here and with ASI 1.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4875|  
  
 ### 912: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-071 - Confusing #IF 1 clause  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:17:46.933Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:20:28.061Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|The noted file has a '#if 1' clause, created in an unclear manner, and accompanied by a comment regarding a possible error.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4819|  
  
 ### 909: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-052 - #pragmas to ignore warnings  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:16:36.541Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:20:19.521Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|There are #pragmas to ignore warnings but comments do not explain why it is safe for one to explicitly ignore those.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4831|  
  
 ### 908: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-044 - Code for test software  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:16:21.400Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:20:08.699Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|The code is active and described as being dangerous and only to be used for test purposes.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4846|  
  
 ### 904: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-032 - Output value not assigned  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:15:06.216Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:45:08.655Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|According to the Software Document Design (starting on page 181), there should be two outputs and the RTEMS_UNSATISFIED isn't returned by the function. The only detected fail could be due to the assert function but the rtems_status_code isn't the returned value.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4843|  
  
 ### 903: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-030 - Wrong data type  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:14:48.693Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:45:05.622Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|The variable ""clkirq"" is declared as int, although it is given as input to functions that require an unsigned int 32;|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4816|  
  
 ### 902: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-029 - Input validity unchecked  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:14:31.404Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:44:36.841Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|vector Input validity not verified for validity.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4855|  
  
 ### 901: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-028 - Unused input parameter  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:14:12.203Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:19:13.809Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|Function input argument not used. Note that this function shouldn't be defined in a header file.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4862|  
  
 ### 900: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-026 - Function defined in header file  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:13:56.374Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:19:05.505Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|Function should not be defined in header files. As these functions are already declared in cpukit/include/rtems/rtmes/cache.h, their definition shouldn't be placed in a header file. Even considering it is an *impl.h file, this type of file is only used for the definition of inline functions and not static functions (refer to page 163 of RTEMS Software Engineering).|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4815|  
  
 ### 897: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-023 - Code not in accordance with comments  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:12:55.988Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:18:55.519Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|The description of this function states that a node is off chain of the ""next"" and ""previous"" fields are NULL. However, this function calls the function ""_Chain_Is_node_off_chain"" which only verifies the ""next"" field.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4812|  
  
 ### 894: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-018 - Deprecated Functions  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:12:05.194Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:18:46.864Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|It is stated in the comments that these functions are deprecated. If is not going to be used, it should be removed.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4852|  
  
 ### 893: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-014 - Macros wrongly defined  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:11:46.126Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:44:33.813Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|According to table 365 of page 294 of the GR740 User Manual (v.2.50), the register addresses are incorrectly defined.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4842|  
  
 ### 891: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-011 - FIXME  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:11:10.292Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:17:18.833Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|Section left to be fixed.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4827|  
  
 ### 890: RTEMS-SMP-CODE-VER-010 - TODO section left undone  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T14:10:52.975Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-21T15:17:03.404Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|*Please refer to the dedicated excel file for the affected sources and code lines|  
|Section left to do (most of the functions are just declared without code on them).|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4810|  
  
 ### 874: RTEMS-SMP-VAL-005 - Missing NULL pointer check for clock manager directives  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T10:50:26.188Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:44:31.303Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|Test case 15 checks the behaviour of the QDP clock manager functions when called with a null pointer. There is no internal check for a NULL pointer in these functions, so when called with a null pointer argument there is unwanted behaviour for both the GR712rc and GR740; an attempt to access memory location 0.  
For the GR712rc board this memory position is not mapped and causes a trap to be raised (this trap handler leads to unpredictable results, the work flow of the program is not recoverable). For the GR740 board the actual memory position is either read or written (the previous value being overridden with unpredictable results).|  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Add logic that tests for NULL pointers within the directives, returning RTEMS_INVALID_ADDRESS where applicable.|  
  
|Agreed Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Report to this to the community, to see if they are willing to adopt a safe approach to this (somehow this shall also be a user responsibility).|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4874|  
  
 ### 873: RTEMS-SMP-VAL-004 - Documentation refers undefined behaviour on cases where an error is to be expected  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T10:50:00.400Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:44:27.646Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|RTEMS-SMP-IVA-TCS-21:  
In semaphore_create, semaphore_flush and semaphore_set_priority documentation says that several configurations have an undefined behaviour. For the most part undefined behaviour configurations will be ignored and the functions will run with default values, but in other cases the functions will return an error. The documentation should reflect this behaviour better.  
The followiong are the specific cases for each function:  
 a) In semaphore_create documentation says that some attributes are mutually exclusive and the combination of them will lead to an undefined behaviour. When testing the combinations the following returned the value RTEMS_NOT_DEFINED:  
| - RTEMS_BINARY_SEMAPHORE | RTEMS_SIMPLE_BINARY_SEMAPHORE  
| - RTEMS_BINARY_SEMAPHORE | RTEMS_PRIORITY | RTEMS_PRIORITY_CEILING | RTEMS_INHERIT_PRIORITY  
| - RTEMS_BINARY_SEMAPHORE | RTEMS_PRIORITY | RTEMS_PRIORITY_CEILING | RTEMS_MULTIPROCESSOR_RESOURCE_SHARING  
| - RTEMS_BINARY_SEMAPHORE | RTEMS_PRIORITY | RTEMS_INHERIT_PRIORITY | RTEMS_MULTIPROCESSOR_RESOURCE_SHARING  
This means that in the code the combinations of this attributes are defined to return an error and that should be reflected in the documentation.  
 b) In semaphore_flush documentation says that flushing a semaphore of the MRSP type in an undefined behaviour. When trying to flush a semaphore if that kind the value RTEMS_NOT_DEFINED is returned.  
This means that in the code this attributes are defined to return an error and that should be reflected in the documentation.  
 c) In semaphore_set_priority documentation says that setting the priority of any semaphore that is not using either the MRSP locking or the priority ceiling protocols is an undefined behaviour. When testing all other kinds of semaphores they returned the value RTEMS_NOT_DEFINED:  
| - RTEMS_COUNTING_SEMAPHORE  
| - RTEMS_BINARY_SEMAPHORE | RTEMS_FIFO  
| - RTEMS_SIMPLE_BINARY_SEMAPHORE  
| - RTEMS_BINARY_SEMAPHORE | RTEMS_PRIORITY | RTEMS_INHERIT_PRIORITY  
This means that in the code the combinations of this attributes are defined to return an error and that should be reflected in the documentation.|  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Update the documentation with the cases where a return error is to be expected|  
  
|Agreed Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|This is a documentation issue that shall be fixed, but right now the focus is on what has a direct functional impact.|  
  
 ### 872: RTEMS-SMP-VAL-003 - Some functions are listed as unspecified on ICD  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T10:49:17.237Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:44:01.076Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|While analysing, in the Interface Control Document (ICD), which items are or not pre-qualified, it was noticed that the following functions have been declared as unspecified-function:  
|- Newlib Functions  
|_Futex_Wait()  
|_Futex_Wake()  
|_Mutex_Acquire()  
|_Mutex_Acquire_timed()  
|_Mutex_recursive_Acquire()  
_Mutex_recursive_Acquire_timed()  
_Mutex_recursive_Release()  
_Mutex_recursive_Try_acquire()  
_Mutex_Release()  
_Mutex_Try_acquire()  
|- General Scheduler Configuration  
RTEMS_SCHEDULER_ASSIGN()  
|- C and POSIX  
clock_nanosleep()  
flsl()  
memcpy()  
memset()  
posix_memalign()  
|- Dynamic Memory Allocation  
rtems_calloc()  
rtems_malloc()  
Please note that this issue is somehow a specialization-of RTEMS-SMP-REQ-VER-038 w.r.t. unspecified-function.|  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Improve the specification of interfaces which are currently set to unspecified interface-type.|  
  
|Agreed Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|This is a documentation issue that shall be fixed, but right now the focus is on what has a direct functional impact.|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4918|  
  
 ### 871: RTEMS-SMP-VAL-001 - "Timer Server" not directly usable  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T10:48:12.344Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:43:57.862Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|While trying to setup tests to assert the overall “Timer Server” feature, one has realized that:  
|   - Although rtems_timer_initiate_server() is mentioned within section 4.10 of the SW Configuration File (SCF) as a pre-qualified item (“which may be directly used by applications”), one gets build issues while trying to use it, as it depends on rtems_timer_create().  
|   - The same SCF (within section 4.9.3) also says: “The rtems_task_create() directive is pre-qualified, however, it is only available if a custom stack allocator is configured. It is recommended to use rtems_task_construct() instead”:  
|      o Isn’t this contradictory, as:  
|         - Both rtems_timer_initiate_server() and tems_task_create() are listed within SCF section 4.10 and  
|         - at the start of section 4.10, it is said that listed items are “pre-qualified items .. which may be directly used by applications”?   
|   - Given this, shouldn’t rtems_timer_initiate_server() natively use of rtems_task_construct() rather than rtems_timer_create() as advised?  
|   - This makes other two functions listed within SCF section 4.10 as not directly usable, namely rtems_timer_server_fire_after() and rtems_timer_server_fire_when() as those are to be used in conjunction with rtems_timer_initiate_server().  
|   - In a nutshell, this compromises the overall “Timer Server” feature in the qual-only setup of the QDP.|  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|One shall clarify these points, and tell us what and how can one improve the RTEMS SMP QDP w.r.t. this.|  
  
|Agreed Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Issue is postponed and shall be highlighted in the reports for the users to be taken into account|  
  
|Related Links|  
| ------ |  
|https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4849|  
  
 ### 845: RTEMS-SMP-DESIGN-VER-008 - Memory usage benchmarks  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T10:34:11.898Z  
 - Update at: 2023-11-25T11:09:55.648Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|Memory Usage Benchmarks within section 4.7 are missing to detail / explain:  
|- the units used for provided values (bits / bytes / Kbytes?)  
|- what the + and - signs mean  
|- If first row (which do not have the +/-) shall or not be seen as a sum off the remaining lines (at least on 4.7.2 that seems not to be the case)|  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Add units for the values and any other contextualising information, otherwise one can't interpret the values.|  
  
|Agreed Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|As in Recommendation / Contractor Answer.|  
  
 ### 841: RTEMS-SMP-DESIGN-VER-004 - No SUM which follows ECSS clauses  
 - Created at: 2023-06-01T10:32:03.591Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:43:18.645Z  
 Description: |Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|As stated in section 4.1.3, the QDP does not provide a SUM which strictly follows the ECSS clauses. This causes issues with the verification of the SCF (acting also as a SUM), as there is not a set of guidelines to compare the file to.  
Also, this leads for the following ISVV Guide checklist items (as within its annex G.4) to fail:  
1.1. Is the SUM containing the correct timing and sizing information? -> sizing within section 4.7 and 4.8, but timing missing.   
1.2. Is the SUM containing correct and complete information on how the software’s contribution to system hazardous events is documented? -> Missing! PS: even if SSS spec is not known, perhaps there are already some RTEMS errors which we might know that will break the system (e.g., as in ICD section spec:/rtems/fatal/if/error-occurred or spec:/rtems/fatal/if/shutdown-executive).  
1.3. Is the SUM containing correct and complete information about features for Fault Detection Isolation and Recovery (FDIR) in accordance with the technical specification (e.g., How does the software deal with the faults that they are supposed to deal with)?  
Missing! see also examples above.  
1.4. Is the SUM containing correct and complete information about the handling of hardware faults?  
Missing! see also examples above.  
1.5. Is the SUM explaining how the implemented software logic is not harming the hardware in any way?  
Missing!  
1.6. Does the user manual have a clear and consistent structure?  
Not always the case. Details in other findings.  
1.7. Is the user manual intelligible for the target software users and are all the required elements for its understanding provided (i.e., acronyms, terms, conventions used, etc.) ?  
Not always the case. Details in other findings.  
1.8. Does the User Manual describe all the functionalities implemented by the software? Is all the necessary information for performing the required operations provided?  
Not directedly! Sections 9 and 11 help on last point but not within RTEMS usage perspective.  
1.9. Is the information provided in the User Manual consistent with the software implementation i.e., does the software behave as described?  
Not able to check this very much, as SCF does not have such detailed behaviour information.  
(see also dedicated table within section A.2 of the ISVV verification report, on which this checklist is filled)  
Even if some of the information requested in the checklist items above is to some extent listed within the SCF linked/referred documentation, it is not self-contained neither laid out in clean, logical and systematic manner, so that a user can easily refer to, as to understand RTEMS functionalities and how to use it.  
One can also argue that within SCF section 4.1.3, the generic (community) RTEMS user manual is also referred as alternative to a dedicated RTEMS User Manual for current QDP, but one must have in mind that RTEMS within these QDPs is limited to the features of Space Profile, so that document will list many functions not used within this scope and might also induce QDP users in error as some functionalities might not behave in the same way (e.g. due to limited dynamic memory features, not being able to use external libraries, etc).|  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Create a new SUM following the necessary ECSS clauses or provide a better rational within section 4.1.3 for this not to be available.|  
  
|Agreed Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|- ESA to perform an offline analysis of each one of these points and define follow-up actions.|  
  
 ### 806: RTEMS-SMP-TS-VER-001 - No Test cases descriptions  
 - Created at: 2023-04-12T13:19:36.336Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-24T15:12:43.214Z  
 Description: | ISVV Finding Number |  
| ------ |  
| TS-VER-001|  
  
| ISVV Finding Title|  
| ------ |  
|No Test cases descriptions|  
  
|Traced Documents/SW|  
| ------ |  
|SVS|  
  
  
|Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|Through out all the SVS, the test case did not have a description (Description is reported as N/A). Understanding the test objectives and design is made more complicated without a clear description of the testcase, and the result is ambiguity and uncertainty on the understanding.|  
  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|A Testcase description should be added for each test case.  
NOTE: All of the testcases that miss a description are validation testcases, it seems that content extraction failed for all of the validation tests.|  
  
  
|ISVV Finding Type|  
| ------ |  
|Completeness|  
  
 ### 805: RTEMS-SMP-REQ-VER-037 - Missing interfaces  
 - Created at: 2023-04-11T15:30:02.546Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:43:06.766Z  
 Description: | ISVV Finding Number |  
| ------ |  
|REQ-VER-037|  
  
| ISVV Finding Title|  
| ------ |  
|Missing interfaces|  
  
|Traced Documents/SW|  
| ------ |  
|ICD|  
  
  
|Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|5.2.1.870  spec:/rtems/type/if/group is missing several links to other interfaces. In fact, the interfaces listed for this interface domain, which do not have links are missing within the ICD.|  
  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Check if the list of interfaces within spec:/rtems/type/if/group needs to be updated not to mention Interfaces not described in the ICD, or if the missing interfaces need to be added to ICD.  
The missing interfaces were filtered out because they are related to Multiprocessing (not SMP) therefore they shall be also removed from the group.|  
  
  
|ISVV Finding Type|  
| ------ |  
|Completeness|  
  
 ### 803: RTEMS-SMP-REQ-VER-004 - Incomplete Requirements  
 - Created at: 2023-04-10T16:21:13.750Z  
 - Update at: 2023-07-19T11:42:34.649Z  
 Description: | ISVV Finding Number |  
| ------ |  
| REQ-VER-004|  
  
| ISVV Finding Title|  
| ------ |  
|Incomplete Requirements|  
  
|Traced Documents/SW|  
| ------ |  
|SRS|  
  
  
|Discrepancy|  
| ------ |  
|The requirements/specifications of "functional-type: action" have an incomplete text, for these to really be understood as requirements.|  
  
  
|Recommendation|  
| ------ |  
|Document builder from specs should be revised. We suggest writing these in the following form:  
"When < something >, then the hereafter pre-conditions, post-conditions <, skip-reasons> and transition-map must be considered."  
Where "pre-conditions, post-conditions and transition-map" are subsections of "functional-type: action" specifications|  
  
  
|ISVV Finding Type|  
| ------ |  
|Correctness|