[a-zw]

📌 Description

Update process_description to 2.2.3.

There is one minor change for a requirement which is not implemented yet. Upstream change was eclipse-score/process_description#853

🚨 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]

Documentation preview for this pull request is available at:
pr-1025: https://eclipse-score.github.io/docs-as-code/pr-1025/

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

The version-2 requirements omit repository/folder-specific level configuration and misclassify feature_integration_tests/ as Unit, which would reject valid Feature links.

1 open issue

• Document configurable level mappings and feature integration test paths · New

What changed in this PR

Updates Docs-as-Code to process_description 2.2.3 and adjusts its verification requirements to reference the updated upstream specification.

Changes:

• Bumps the Bazel dependency and corresponding lockfile entries to 2.2.3.
• Updates the downstream integration-test fixture to use the same release.
• Revises requirement traceability and the unimplemented test-link validation requirement.

File	Description
tools/​tests/​module_verification_reports_test.py	Updates the downstream fixture’s process_description version.
MODULE.bazel.lock	Records registry hashes for version 2.2.3.
MODULE.bazel	Bumps process_description from 2.2.2 to 2.2.3.
docs/​internals/​requirements/​requirements.rst	References parent requirement version 2 and revises test-link rules.

_{Review effort: Balanced}

[Copilot]

🔵 Needs a closer look

The metadata table conflicts with the 2.2.3 process guidance, potentially causing consumers to reject valid unit-level tags and accept unsupported explorative-testing level combinations.

No open issues 🎉

1 previously missed issue

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Align metadata table with updated test-level guidance

docs/​internals/​requirements/​requirements.rst:838

The metadata table below still contradicts the process guidance shipped in 2.2.3. Upstream PR #853 allows requirements-based and boundary-values at unit level, but restricts explorative-testing to feature/platform; this requirement excludes the former and permits the latter at all levels. Please align the table with the upgraded guidance so consumers implementing these checks do not reject valid metadata or accept unsupported level/tag combinations.

1 resolved since last review

• Document configurable level mappings and feature integration test paths

_{Review effort: Balanced}