You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently, we declare that DSS0005 is a requirement and that DSS0005,1 through DSS0005,5 are separate requirements also. This introduces inconsistency, however, as I believe that there should be nothing a participant needs to do to comply with DSS0005 apart from complying with DSS0005,1 through DSS0005,5.
Describe the solution you'd like
Throughout uss_qualifier testing documentation, replace references to DSS0005 with the appropriate DSS0005,x value, then remove the <tt>...<.tt> requirement decorator from DSS0005 in v21.md (similar to DSS0130 in ASTM F3411-22a).
Describe alternatives you've considered
If we could not conclude that a participant who fully complied with DSS0005,1 through DSS0005,5 necessarily complies with DSS0005, then we wouldn't want to make the change suggested here. However, I do not believe that is the case.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently, we declare that
DSS0005
is a requirement and thatDSS0005,1
throughDSS0005,5
are separate requirements also. This introduces inconsistency, however, as I believe that there should be nothing a participant needs to do to comply withDSS0005
apart from complying withDSS0005,1
throughDSS0005,5
.Describe the solution you'd like
Throughout uss_qualifier testing documentation, replace references to
DSS0005
with the appropriateDSS0005,x
value, then remove the<tt>...<.tt>
requirement decorator fromDSS0005
in v21.md (similar toDSS0130
in ASTM F3411-22a).Describe alternatives you've considered
If we could not conclude that a participant who fully complied with
DSS0005,1
throughDSS0005,5
necessarily complies withDSS0005
, then we wouldn't want to make the change suggested here. However, I do not believe that is the case.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: