Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add mock documentation #7
Add mock documentation #7
Changes from 10 commits
fa1a7e3
3420bee
0922e80
660cea0
65fe274
f8443c2
605ab44
e9d9100
976105b
92defab
7b8f98d
5ada4d5
b16d607
1f0dc20
8e480c9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Excellent question! I would think that we would define the workflow and provide a document that explains it to the developers and the regulators. We can pull out their favourite branch names from the configuration file if that really helps. Whether changing the workflow is possible or sensible is a question for later. It might well be that the .qw directory is quite happy being split and merged and so it could be quite flexible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I could try it on Desktop@Home (or whatever it's called) if you like?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah not a bad shout, not a masive rush but would be good to know early
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We probably need a way to define generated documents generically, rather than specify this on a case-by-case basis. I'm thinking you can generate a basic set of docs that follows SmartTarget or QNICE's example; these are stored in the Templates directory (and could be word templates or some sort of markdown thing). You can perhaps put plain old Word documents in there if you like (if we have a reasonable way of inserting a version number into it). There would be another Partials directory where all the bits go, for example a list of Hazards that gets pulled into other documents.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if we're talking across eachother. This was ment to be the proof of validation work, e.g. validation of a user need, so a test script. rather than generating documentation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm more talking about the first clause in that statement. Shouldn't we be aiming to produce validation documentation? Not sure. What are we envisioning for validation documentation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In my mind the validation document would be how they validated it, what the outcome was, and it being signed off. I think we'd just need to have a way to point to the name of the validation document (which would be added in cognidox) using the verification and validation csv. But I think if that doesn't sound right then let's have a chat today
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about qw freeze makes its own PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oopf, what if there are staged changes when you run it? Feels like we could enter in a world of pain
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Absolutely, run
qw freeze
only on a clean repository, slap the results into a PR with no extra stuff.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
my only concern here is what if they're not on main, or main isn't updated. I guess we could check for these but feels like there's a large surface area for pain that we're taking on
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems to me that
qw release
should take templates and frozen items to produce one document per template. Must be frozen items, right?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think that this is critical, but may be a nice to have for someone taking a quality lead role to see how well the system is being used
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, management documents are planned. Not exactly sure what will be in them yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From my initial thoughts, the most useful bits would be to export and link tables to include in the software development plan, software requirement analysis, software detailed design, and software unit implementation and verification bits to comply with IEC 62304. The doc names may vary on the template you're using - those are based on Magda's interpretation of WEISS QMS I think and QNICE as an example. Other possibly useful templates at https://openregulatory.com/templates/
I think editing the templates will be needed as there will be other bits of content to update based on what the project is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, templates should be copied in to the repo so that the devs can edit them as required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes! Managers love this stuff! Here is the rate we are burning down our risks, our Design Inputs and our Problem Reports!
We should absolutely store the state of the system at each
qw freeze
(or even more frequently) so that we can build these charts. May not be top priority of course.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will be project specific, and part of the process docs will define how releases are controlled. For example on SRR, we've stated that releases of software and docs need to be approved by Magda. So I think control of PR sign-off would be useful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just considering this further, are we saying that every PR would need to be approved by madga in this project?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And does this mean that you have the author, a normal approver plus Magda making 3 people?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We absolutely need a list of people who are authorized and trained to do this. This list of people needs to be controlled by
qw
, so the open question is really more like "how do we control the list of authorized PR approvers, CR approvers and the like?"There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we're gating PRs then it'd all be using github rules and codeowners files. Though I'm less sure QW should control this, and its more up to the users to make sure they comply with their own development process?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is an excellent idea. We should absolutely lean into github's natural way of doing things where they exist. Escpecially as gitlab does it too.
In this case our configuration should be split into many csv files (or similar) rather than one giant .json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd say that a change request is to do with when the system is deployed and part of ongoing risk management so wouldn't be needed in a MVP. The interaction of risk management with design and testing would be very useful in a future iteration!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also noticed tha James has been tracking bugs and then the PRs that are closed, that weren't related to a specific user need, but not sure if that's required. Though does set up the case for ongoing surveillance post release
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to clarify, if a change was needed on an existing qw item, post freeze, would the change requester just modify the existing qw item from within github?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yep they'd change it in github, and then on the next
freeze
command it'd prompt to say that it had changed and ask if its a negligable change (so keep it and dont increment the version) or the change requires a new version to be created