Tirsvad
52afb369a7
Add FlightData.stops, check_flights(is_direct) and the indirect fallback in main. Record ADR-0001 and the code review RC-009. Task: MIL-002#1 Task: MIL-002#2 Task: MIL-002#3 Task: MIL-002#4
69 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
69 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
# SQA Review Record
|
|
|
|
## Metadata
|
|
| Key | Value |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| ID | RC-001 |
|
|
| CrossReference | [BC-001], [QC-BC-001], [QC-LANG-001] |
|
|
|
|
## Version History
|
|
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| 2026-10-24 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | AI as stand-in for S01 | Initial version | [c5a6ed5] |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Artifact Under Review
|
|
|
|
- Instance reviewed: [BC-001]
|
|
- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001] and [QC-LANG-001]
|
|
- Scope: full review
|
|
- Language and domain: en / it
|
|
- Language reviewer: none (the stand-in reads the language and knows the domain)
|
|
- Mode: autonomous, not independent (the reviewer is `AI as stand-in for S01`)
|
|
|
|
## Checklist Results
|
|
|
|
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Cost-benefit is qualitative and the table says why (small project, cost is time only). |
|
|
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Risks table has five risks, each with impact and mitigation. |
|
|
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Seven success criteria with targets and measures. |
|
|
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | In Scope and Out of Scope subsections present. |
|
|
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01, S02, S03 only; no inline role descriptions. |
|
|
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Methodology and standards section names the framework, ISO/IEC 25010 and coding skills. |
|
|
| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Assumptions and Constraints are separate lists. |
|
|
| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Recommendation is a single 'Proceed' with rationale. |
|
|
|
|
## Language and Domain Results
|
|
|
|
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| 1 | The Metadata table has a `Language` row and a `Domain` row, and neither is a placeholder | Pass | Language `en` and Domain `it` rows are in Metadata. |
|
|
| 2 | `Language` is a BCP 47 code and `Domain` is a value from the registry's domain list | Pass | `en` is BCP 47; `it` is in the registry domain list. |
|
|
| 3 | The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language | Pass | All prose and table cells are English. |
|
|
| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | Register matches the registry row for this type. |
|
|
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | The project has no domain dictionary (DICT); the document uses standard IT terms consistently, with no synonyms. Stand-in judgement. |
|
|
| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English | Pass | Metadata keys, headings, IDs and statuses are English. |
|
|
| 7 | No translated twin (`<name>.<language>.md`) exists beside the document | Pass | No translated twin exists. |
|
|
| 8 | A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again | Pass | First version; no language change. |
|
|
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly | Pass | Confirmed by the stand-in for S01 (Product Owner, IT domain). Mode: autonomous, not independent. |
|
|
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Fail | Optional: SMTP, API, CI and similar abbreviations are not all spelled out on first use. Action item below. |
|
|
|
|
## Overall Verdict
|
|
|
|
Go — all mandatory criteria pass; the one failed criterion is optional (QC-LANG-001 criterion 10) and has an action item.
|
|
|
|
## Action Items
|
|
|
|
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| Spell out the abbreviations (SMTP, API, CI, IATA) on first use in the README glossary | S01 | 2026-11-07 |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
|
|
[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-business-case.md
|
|
[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-language-domain.md
|
|
[c5a6ed5]: https://git.tirsystem.com/Tirsvad-Udemy-100-days-of-code/040-personal-flight-club/commit/c5a6ed5985f76d8836f763acc5638053a39157f2
|