Anegm/fault models needs elements

[ANegm-ETAS]

• Fault Models are now needs elements that can be linked to from the FMEA/DFA

• Changed the format of the DFA and FMEA Fault Models to be represented as a table

• added the following fields to the FMEA template:
  failure_root_cause
  safety_relevant

• added the following fields to the DFA template:
  safety_relevant

[github-actions]

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

[masc2023]

Needs discussion, put on agenda here https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/407#discussioncomment-16514494

[masc2023]

Needs discussion, put on agenda here https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/407#discussioncomment-16514494

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

I am not a fan of the needs objects being decalred in process randomly in a conf.py

We should declare everything that isn't repo specific that only that repo needs in the metamodel.
And it seems if I understand correclty that FMEA and DFA are that way.

[aschemmel-tech]

Description missing how to use the new attributes "safety_relevant" and "root cause" (i.e. reasoning why needed)
Unclear what the benefit is of having the dfa_failure_indicators and fault_models as needs elements.

[aschemmel-tech]

Shouldn't the "fmea_fault_model" also be defined in the docs-as-code metamodel (if agreed)?

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

Yes. In my opinion it should be.

[ANegm-ETAS]

created new PR here to add the "fmea_fault_model" to the docs-as-code
eclipse-score/docs-as-code#499

[aschemmel-tech]

Shouldn't the "dfa_failure_initiator" also be defined in the docs-as-code metamodel (if agreed)?

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

Yes. In my opinion it should be.

[ANegm-ETAS]

created new PR here to add the "dfa_failure_initiator" to the docs-as-code
eclipse-score/docs-as-code#499

[ANegm-ETAS]

Description missing how to use the new attributes "safety_relevant" and "root cause" (i.e. reasoning why needed) Unclear what the benefit is of having the dfa_failure_indicators and fault_models as needs elements.

• since failures discovered in FMEA/DFA might not necessarily be safety relevant the field "safety_relevant" should indicate the criticality of the failure , and "root cause" field is needed since in the current layout doesn't make it clear what actually caused the failure and makes it difficult to actually review if the mitigation method addresses the failure root cause

• having the dfa_failure_indicators and fault_models as needs elements enables us to link to the fault models from the FMEA

[ANegm-ETAS]

according to discussion in S-CORE Safety Team Process Community
https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2234?sort=new#discussioncomment-16582708

The entire list of Fault Modes will be copied into each component/feature/platform FMEA/DFA so from a process point of view we do not need to create needs elements of fault modes to link them to the safety analysis