5.1 KiB
5.1 KiB
SQA Review Record: MIL-005 and the planning change it causes
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | RC-020 |
| CrossReference | MIL-005, QC-MIL-001, US-001, UC-001 |
Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-06 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | ded26a6 |
Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: MIL-005, and the changes it causes in BC-001, US-001, UC-001, SSD-001, OC-001, SD-001, DM-001, DM-002, DICT-001 and PP-001. The two Design Class Diagrams that change with it are reviewed in RC-021.
- Checklist used: QC-MIL-001 for MIL-005. The other artifacts were changed, not created; their change is checked below for consistency with the checklists of their types and with the PP reference.
- Review date: 2026-10-06
Checklist Results (MIL-005, QC-MIL-001)
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A concrete deliverable is defined for every gate | Pass | A script that asks for a missing credential and creates the new project's .env, the documentation of the feature and its risk, and tests for every case. |
| 2 | Explicit Go/No-Go criteria are stated for each gate | Pass | Nine criteria, each with an objective Go and No-Go, including all acceptance criteria of US-001.05. |
| 3 | Dependencies on other milestones are explicitly mapped | Pass | Depends on [MIL-004], with the reason. |
| 4 | Each milestone is traceable to a Business Case objective or KPI | Pass | Maps to objective 9, the amended objective 6 and success criteria 1 and 9 of BC-001, and to US-001.05. |
| 5 | Milestone owner and approving reviewer are identified | Pass | Owner S01, approving reviewer S02. |
| 6 | Milestone has a defined target date consistent with project constraints | Pass | 2026-11-27 matches PP-001; the Business Case sets no duration, so nothing conflicts. The date is a proposal and is accepted here. |
Change checks on the other artifacts
| Artifact | Change | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| BC-001 | Objective 9, scope items, success criterion 9, a risk and a constraint; objective 6 and success criterion 1 amended | Pass | The security guarantee is weakened on purpose and said so in the same place: a token may be written only to the new project's .env, after a yes. The risk row lists the mitigations. |
| US-001 | US-001.05 with five acceptance criteria | Pass | Given/when/then; traces to UC-001 and MIL-005; the last criterion keeps the "no credential in output" rule. |
| UC-001 | Precondition, step 2 and 9 notes, extensions 2b, 9c, 9d, a postcondition and two business rules | Pass | Extension 2b ends before any change when input ends; 9c and 9d keep "never replaced without a yes". |
| SSD-001 | writeEnvFile and the credentials not provided in .env become parameters; the lifecycle note names the one thing that persists |
Pass | One new parameter and a note; the operations are unchanged. |
| OC-001 | Postcondition P14, a precondition, two exceptions, and P2 reworded | Pass | P14 states the contents, the mode, the git exclusion and "no credential shown". |
| SD-001 | CredentialCollector and EnvFileWriter and their messages |
Pass | Every new postcondition has a message; the coverage table is updated. Three lines damaged by an earlier edit (actor Maintainer, the first provideProjectDetails message, the final summary return) are restored in this change. |
| DM-001, DM-002 | Concept Credentials File and two associations |
Pass | Both models changed in the same way. |
| DICT-001 | Credentials File ↔ EnvFile |
Pass | One PO term and one IT term, as the dictionary rules require. |
| PP-001 | Phase MIL-005, dependency chain, timeline | Pass | Dates agree with MIL-005. |
One point for the implementation: the Go/No-Go criterion 5 says the file has mode 600 "from the moment it is created". That means the script must create it under umask 077 (or with install -m 600) and not write it first and restrict it afterwards. Task 2 already says so.
Overall Verdict
Go — MIL-005 passes every mandatory criterion and the changes to the other artifacts are consistent with each other. The weakening of the credential guarantee is deliberate, bounded and recorded in the Business Case. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|
| None | - | - |