rename relations for Codebeamer compatibility

[RSingh1511]

📌 Description

🚨 Impact Analysis

• This change does not violate any tool requirements and is covered by existing tool requirements
• This change does not violate any design decisions
• Otherwise I have created a ticket for new tool qualification

✅ Checklist

• Added/updated documentation for new or changed features
• Added/updated tests to cover the changes
• Followed project coding standards and guidelines

[github-actions]

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //src:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.4.2) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: f37f87a8-996d-42b4-bd21-f7e6ea638e6e
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
WARNING: Target pattern parsing failed.
ERROR: Skipping '//src:license-check': no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
ERROR: no such target '//src:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package 'src' defined by /home/runner/work/docs-as-code/docs-as-code/src/BUILD
INFO: Elapsed time: 7.170s
INFO: 0 processes.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
ERROR: Build failed. Not running target

[masc2023]

Not sure why you want to change it, but before you can change something, you need to apply change request, as this is defined here
https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html#building-blocks-meta-model

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

We can't just change something big like that.

A lot of the documentations are already build with these namings in mind, and now changing them without any reasoning or agreeing inside S-CORE that this needs to happen does not seem smart nor ideal to me.

As @masc2023 said above, if this truly is a change needed, please make sure you discuss it in the correct meetings inside S-CORE and make a change request.

As it's still on draft I won't close this. But as is currently this will not be considered.

[aschemmel-tech]

This change is related to eclipse-score/process_description#418 - which exists and is approved by the process_community since some time, but never got the capacity to do.

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

This change is related to eclipse-score/process_description#418 - which exists and is approved by the process_community since some time, but never got the capacity to do.

Then alright, seems reasonable.

I will review it once it is not in draft anymore.

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

@RSingh1511 this PR has some merge conflicts.
Could you rebase and solve them? Then we can have a look and potentially merge this for next release.

[RSingh1511]

@RSingh1511 this PR has some merge conflicts. Could you rebase and solve them? Then we can have a look and potentially merge this for next release.

Done.

[RolandJentschETAS]

That is against the meta model requirements from process to made mandatory links to optional.

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

There is still some conflicts in requirements.rst as well as the issue with the process that Roland mentioned.

[masc2023]

This change is related to eclipse-score/process_description#418 - which exists and is approved by the process_community since some time, but never got the capacity to do.

Then alright, seems reasonable.

I will review it once it is not in draft anymore.

Again some concerns, the issues says compatibility to SysML, can we already target SyML 2.0, but would that not mean rather using "refine" as derived_from.

[github-actions]

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html