-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 223
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
Consider analyzing conditionals for mc/dc coverage #721
Comments
This is a very welcome addition! Is there any information on the mcdc_checker tool? I couldn't find source or license information at https://gtd-gmbh.gitlab.io/mcdc-checker/mcdc-checker/ |
Nevermind, source can be found here: https://gitlab.com/gtd-gmbh/mcdc-checker/mcdc-checker and licensing information here: https://gitlab.com/gtd-gmbh/mcdc-checker/mcdc-checker/-/blob/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads |
Checklist (Please check before submitting)
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Safety critical software often requires MC/DC coverage, which per various sources can be proven using lcov/gcov if all conditionals are decision trees (not graphs). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0_PF8MtEEo.
Describe the solution you'd like
Run the cFS core and shared apps through a tool to check for decision trees, see https://gtd-gmbh.gitlab.io/mcdc-checker/mcdc-checker/ as an example. Convert any graphs to trees. Ideally put this in CI/CD to enforce using trees.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Could use a commercial tool, but typically not as friendly w/ open source CI/CD.
Additional context
Not doing this means the current coverage reporting can't prove the independence criteria of MC/DC is being met.
Requester Info
Jacob Hageman - NASA/GSFC
@pepepr08
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: