Files
github-action/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-056-uc-005-cpp-csharp.md
T
Tirsvad a5bb159e2c
TirSystem/github-action: Publish wiki / publish-wiki (push) Skipped
TirSystem/github-action: Sync GitHub mirror metadata / sync-metadata (push) Skipped
Validate workflows / validate (pull_request) Successful in 17s
Resolve pending commit links in the UC-005 and US-001 acceptance
2026-10-11 12:48:19 +08:00

3.2 KiB

Review Record: UC-005 (C++ and C#)

Metadata

Key Value
ID RC-056
CrossReference UC-005, QC-UC-001

Version History

Date Status Author Reviewer Change Commit
2026-10-11 Accepted Jens Tirsvad Nielsen S01 Initial version 1bc56f8

Artifact Under Review

  • Instance reviewed: UC-005 after the extension of its Brief to C++ and C# (MIL-007 task 1)
  • Checklist used: QC-UC-001 (Brief format)

Checklist Results

# Criterion Status Evidence/Notes
1 Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario Pass Finding fixed during this review: the extension had added a sentence about a language that needs a build or a project file and says what is missing, which is a failure flow. It is removed from the Brief; the stories US-001.16 and .17 carry it as an acceptance criterion.
2 Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure N-A Format is Brief.
3 All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows N-A Format is Brief; actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions and the paragraph are present.
4 Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined Pass The precondition now lists the four languages (Python, shell, C++, C#); the postcondition is unchanged.
5 Primary actor is explicitly stated Pass Software Engineer.
6 Stakeholders and their interests are stated Pass S02 and S05, unchanged.
7 Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps N-A Format is Brief.
8 Alternative/exception flows correctly reference <<include>>/<<extend>> use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 N-A None in a Brief.
9 Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text N-A No steps in a Brief.
10 Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories Pass Title and actor equal UCD-001; the Stories line lists US-001.09, .10, .16 and .17, which exist.
11 Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated Pass Scope and user-goal level, unchanged.
12 Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail Pass Goal wording; the tool names are not in the Brief for C++ and C#.

Overall Verdict

Go - all applicable criteria pass; the one finding (criterion 1) was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-11, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.

Action Items

Action Owner Due
Update the description of this use case in the Use Case Diagram table of UCD-001 ("Lint, format and type checks run on every change ...") to cover C++ and C# at its next review S01 next review of UCD-001