Eclipse S-CORE
SW Dev Process Community - S-CORE Safety Team - Meeting Minutes #2234
Replies: 23 comments 3 replies
-
|
Dec-02, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Scope Definition, compare https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2226
Time permitting (process topics):
Participants: Meeting Minutes: Define Scope of the working group Technical aspects safety related, Features, Module, (Requirements, Architecture, Analysis, Verification/Tests) ->Safety Engineer @aschemmel-tech volunteers to take over moderation this working stream #398 will be reviewed by @masc2023 , findings will be recorded, and solved in another PR by @aschemmel-tech Decision: Safety Managers will be elected for the Platform, For Modules, Safety Managers are selected from the Platform Safety Managers Pool Audit Plan showed. Everybody should check, if the schedule is feasible and feedback to @aschemmel-tech , if changes are required. Discussed, #2259, Agreed to change for competence management for PLs #2056, @aschemmel-tech will have an additional review |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dec-09, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: Meeting Minutes:
eclipse-score/process_description#72 approved proposal and assigned eclipse-score/process_description#212 to @masc2023 Naming conventions, https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/general/naming.html, Issue detected by implementing baselibs-rust and baselibs-cpp, possible solution: module name in ID (not feature), but then ID length increased. Discuss how to treat the component requirements (which would also be the same for the cpp and Rust implementations) - @aschemmel-tech to discuss in the Baselibs Feature Team. Release v1.4.0 planned for scorev0.5-beta-release |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Dec-16, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: Minutes of Meeting:
Post-Poned: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Jan-13, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: Agenda:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Jan-20, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: Minutes of Meeting: Safety Audit Jan-14 to Jan-16: Feedback and next steps
Information from https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516 Feedback on #2346:
Planning for v0.5 final - what do we want to have in this release (to do in the next two weeks):
Removal/Addition of persons from/to CODEOWNERS (e.g. @PhilipPartsch) - update to be done by @aschemmel-tech for score repo and @masc2023 will do for process_description repo (maybe include @RolandJentschETAS after his committer election) Planning for v1.0: eclipse-score/process_description#240 : show/discuss proposal by @aschemmel-tech
Info: eclipse-score/tooling#95 - work on automation to create SEooC documentation @RolandJentschETAS : Proposed to modify the current approach how to document component archtitecture (only shows components within the componentes and not the internal interfaces) to align with the feature architecture (external and internal interfaces/ relations between components) - community agreed and @RolandJentschETAS will create a PR for this (and eventually present next Tuesday). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Jan-27, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: Feedback on #2346: - @arsibo agreed to prepare a proof of concept for 2b - postponed to Feb-3 due to technical problems in implementation Planning milestones as in eclipse-score/process_description#240 - can be planned on releases via the "S-CORE Roadmap"
@odra to share his insights on the "OS / QNX integration" (planned in #536) Detailed Design representation discussion:
Discussion result: Process community agreed to not model Units, Real Operations, Real Interfaces and Unit Tests as Sphinx needs - only use references but still allowing ULM pictures also for the Detailed Design documentation. @RolandJentschETAS to create a ticket documenting the need changes to metamodel, Implementation Process, Verification Process and cares for the presentation of this in the upcoming v1.0 safety audit. Naming, OS Module, contains again SW Platform but means OS, where S-CORE also is called SW Platform Present bazel link to workproducts / metamodel - eclipse-score/tooling#95 - first presentation by @hoe-jo |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Feb-03, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: Audit feedback - no reply from Exida, @aschemmel-tech to remind (for eclipse-score/process_description#518) Feedback on #2346: - @arsibo agreed to prepare a proof of concept for 2b
Planning milestones as in eclipse-score/process_description#240 - can be planned on releases via the "S-CORE Roadmap" - check PIM - Process Implementation Community (view) and PRC - Process Development Community (view) -> for the latter view, please all assignees make up their mind for wich release 0.7, 0.8, ... their epics should be planned and comment this in the epic - @masc2023 will set the right attributes then. Detailed Design representation: @RolandJentschETAS : ticket created? eclipse-score/process_description#540 assignee(s)? - assigned now Verification Report tooling (#2521)? Do we model integration tests (and unit tests) as sphinx-needs elements? Better only in report? - not discussed, post poned Crosscheck Security versus Safety Activities: eclipse-score/process_description#542 - @aschemmel-tech to review PMP updates: #2481 -> describes planning, please review and learn! Initial Tool List: #2497 (See https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-2497/score_tools/eclipse_score_tools_safety_evaluation_list.html) - not discussed, post poned eclipse-score/process_description#524, Update for Dependable Element, https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/407#discussioncomment-15605348 -> removal of "Modules" need to be planned (for process and metamodel) - to be presented by @masc2023 again on Thursday Feb-05 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Feb-10, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: Audit report arrived, some documentation unclear - need to be resolved, "publishable report" still to be delivered by Exida - open findings documented in eclipse-score/process_description#518 sub-issues - we want to wait for the corrected report before starting the rework. @masc2023 : Proposal to prioritize the Project Planning related findings and work on this together in the community. So we will collect these actions and deviations in one task and discuss/resolve in the next meeting. eclipse-score/logging#52 and #2346 - resolve open topics (e.g. how to link component requirements from other modules to feature requirements, inclusion of relevant platform work products, what to show in feature/platform architecture) @aschemmel-tech presented solution for this using new links via "Component AoU", @arsibo proposed to use the linking from Component Requirements to be able to say this "belongs to" an external "Component" - the last proposal shall be used to modify the Decision Record in a joint effort. The second topic: collecting all the artefacts relevant for a Delivery Container to be used as a SEooC is resolved by the proposal by @ramceb. Maybe also related is #2560. So in the end the main driver for this proposal is for the teams to be able to work independently from score platform repository (and from each other). Verification Report tooling (#2521)? Do we model integration tests (and unit tests) as sphinx-needs elements? Better only in report? Pilot implementation in https://eclipse-score.github.io/persistency/main/persistency/kvs/docs/requirements/statistics.html suggests the following: the sphinx needs elements for the integration tests are created by tooling (currently only "testcase" element exists for this. In the metamodel this is depicted by the "dotted lines" starting from all the integration test boxes. Open topic: How do we deal with requirements which are only partly verified in this report - this is currently not covered by the implementation, but the requirements process foresees an attribute manually filled which documents that the currently linked testcases in sum verify a requirement completely. Post-Poned to Thursday meeting Feb-12: OS integration topic, present: #2515 Symbol report verification report is updated and waiting for checks if findings are solved #2544 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Feb-17, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: Audit news, eclipse-score/process_description#518 sub-issues are done, inconsistencies do not affect documented findings and deviations, separate ticket about Project Planning related findings not done, there is only one related finding in Safety Mgt. Asked Exida for corrections in report and also the "publishable" one. Tool List PR #2497 to get merged/ check the open items. #2346 (revisited) - proposal how to distribute feature artefacts to score and module repositories derived by @aschemmel-tech, @arsibo, @RolandJentschETAS - no veto, but should be presented also in Thursday meeting. PR needs to be updated to show the actual proposal - @arsibo will update the PR and @RolandJentschETAS will do the technical implementation of metamodel changes if decided. OS integration topic, present: #2515 (also answers the next point) - improvement proposals: tag and mark as "external" component, create a process requirement to cover the checking of used OS functions. How to handle coding guidelines as enforced by the Operating System. Related to: #536 (added by @attifunel and @pahmann) - proposal to use safety manual numbering like in our standard section. Verification Report tooling (#2521) Pilot implementation in https://eclipse-score.github.io/persistency/main/persistency/kvs/docs/requirements/statistics.html suggests the following: the sphinx needs elements for the integration tests are created by tooling (currently only "testcase" element exists for this. In the metamodel this is depicted by the "dotted lines" starting from all the integration test boxes. @masc2023 and @aschemmel-tech to resolve questions on eclipse-score/process_description#572 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Feb-24, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: Audit news, eclipse-score/process_description#518, Asked Exida for corrections in report and also the "publishable" one. Thursday meeting will be moderated by @aschemmel-tech. open PR: (Change) Tickets: eclipse-score/.github#36 and #2481 - no progress on the open comments, discusss remark of @AlexanderLanin in Thursday meeting again if the colleagues are present. @RolandJentschETAS to inquire @anmittag if he needs input to resolve the comments. Symbol report tool evaluation: #2544 - unclear what is the next step, are all compiler usecases (also structural coverage and unit testing) covered by the tool evaluation by Ferrocene. Safety Mgt templates: eclipse-score/process_description#574 and #2600 - need to check updates if the comments are now solved Design decision linking: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Mar-03, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: Audit news, eclipse-score/process_description#518, corrected report received, the "publishable" one pending. Can start working on eclipse-score/process_description#518 - if you need the report now, ask @aschemmel-tech to send (confidentially). Handling QNX safety manual restrictions within S-Core @ANegm-ETAS @pahmann @attifunel Aligning S-Core FMEA Process with AIAG & VDA FMEA Handbook @ANegm-ETAS - Would we want to base our FMEA process on this - no, because we only do SW level dvelopment. The process is based on Exida guidance about SW safety analysis. No need to change for the moment. open PR: Symbol report tool evaluation: #2544 - feedback @alekseyborisyukvalidas - waiting on Ferrocene confirmation and documentation of the TÜV approval on their argumentation. Verification Report tooling (#2521) Pilot implementation in https://eclipse-score.github.io/persistency/main/persistency/kvs/docs/requirements/statistics.html suggests the following: the sphinx needs elements for the integration tests are created by tooling (currently only "testcase" element exists for this. In the metamodel this is depicted by the "dotted lines" starting from all the integration test boxes. Design decision process epic: #2625 - who volunteers? - @pahmann on the condition it is not for the next audit slot in April Process requirements implementation: eclipse-score/process_description#589 - solution proposed by @PandaeDo - this applies to process requirements not fulfilled by docs-as-code but another tool of S-CORE (e.g. github), just check the two associated PRs. If you encounter missing docs-as-code implementation please contact @MaximilianSoerenPollak and the infrastructue community for other new needed tools. Safety Mechanisms rework: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-2635/requirements/stakeholder/index.html#stkh_req__dependability__safety_features_1 ff and https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-2635/requirements/platform_assumptions/index.html#aou_req__platform__hardware_safety - @aschemmel-tech will set the PR to review for this. Extension of README with safety/security relevance |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Mar-10, 09-10 o'clock CANCELLED - due to parallel "S-CORE Release 0.6 - Lessons Learned" |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Mar-17, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: Release Lessons Learned meeting: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1595#discussioncomment-15998223 - open PMP rework: #2671 - lost of comments still open, all FT leads have to approve, will be discussed in "release team" meeting. @PandaeDo made an amendment to the process_description to align with the detailed S-CORE project process. eclipse-score/process_description#599 - merged, linking of AoU - feature requirements can not be linked to component level AoU without creating cyclic dependencies (as soon as DR-001 is implemented). Addition after meeting: The described use case is very unlikely, so we do not work on an improvement for now. eclipse-score/process_description#609 - When to write AoU? @pahmann suggested that all PR adding an AoU would need safety manager/engineer review, maybe by an automated process. @aschemmel-tech : safety manager should be involved latest in a inspection of the requirement/AoU Symbol report tool evaluation: #2544 - feedback @alekseyborisyukvalidas - waiting on Ferrocene confirmation and documentation of the TÜV approval on their argumentation. - Ferrocene comment in #2544 (comment) may need breakout sesssion as proposed by @pawelrutkaq in his comment. @alekseyborisyukvalidas will get in contact and organize a meeting including @masc2023 and @aschemmel-tech. Verification Report tooling (#2521) Pilot implementation in https://eclipse-score.github.io/persistency/main/persistency/kvs/requirements/statistics.html suggests the following: the sphinx needs elements for the integration tests are created by tooling (currently only "testcase" element exists for this. In the metamodel this is depicted by the "dotted lines" starting from all the integration test boxes. eclipse-score/process_description#535 - preview by Useblocks provided, solution may already be available next week, we need to think if/how we can use this solution for our "Impact analysis tool". #2684 - @anmittag was asked to also make sure the decision about the new issue templates is now also implemented in the S-CORE repositories. For this maybe a common decision is needed in the Tech Leads Alignment meeting next week (@masc2023 will put it on the agenda there). Proof of Concept for QNX safety manual restrictions @ANegm-ETAS - shown local PoC - will be created a PR from this to review. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Mar-24, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: Publishable audit report arrived. Is only "management level", no actual findings contained, will be published in v0.7 release notes. Open topics for Audit on April-14 (three weeks minus Easter) - see eclipse-score/process_description#518 eclipse-score/process_description#535 - Versioned links implemented by UseBlocks: https://sphinx-needs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/changelog.html#release-8-0-0 - shown the updated functionality for sphinx-needs, @aschemmel-tech will consider this as a way to implement the impact analysis tool post-poned to Thursday: eclipse-score/process_description#618, based on eclipse-score/process_description#418 #2702 - QNX restrictions proposal: commented in PR, discussed what to link this to, proposal was to architecture elements fulfilling the restrictions or test cases checking the fulfilment. Discussion on Heap strategy @clemens-k: there is currently no written down/consolidated guideline how to deal with dynamic memory (only shall be avoided in runtime and is allowed in startup) - @aschemmel-tech recommended to address this to the architecture community. @odra proposed to add a link to https://github.com/eclipse-score/os_images to the OS module information in S-CORE (including the documentation temlate). Will create a PR to propose this. @alekseyborisyukvalidas asked @pawelrutkaq to arrange a meeting with Ferrocene on the Symbol report tool evaluation. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Mar-31, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: @aschemmel-tech : absent on Apr-7 - @masc2023 will moderate the meeting Open topics for Audit on April-14 - see eclipse-score/process_description#518 - priority on "development processes", agenda proposal to be done based on this by @aschemmel-tech eclipse-score/process_description#618, based on eclipse-score/process_description#418 need to discuss eclipse-score/process_description#621 link Component Req to Feature Architecture needed? @RolandJentschETAS to consider, @aschemmel-tech will create a change request issue to plan this, because this is a scope change, this is also related to the improvement to move the process examples (eclipse-score/docs-as-code#392 (comment)) Component architecture views not as expected, see e.g. https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/modules/baselibs/json/docs/architecture/index.html and need to discuss if "fulfils" and "belongs_to" are somehow redundant. @RolandJentschETAS will check how to correct the view generation, the "belongs_to" should stay in, because the component architecture views may not exist if there is no "sub-component" and thus no need for these views. Introduction of platform architecture view needs - already in the deployment example: https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/_images/score_building_blocks_meta_model_deployment_example.drawio.svg - @RolandJentschETAS to include in metamodel and the process description. We may consider also a drawing function, but not at the moment. #2702 - QNX restrictions coverage discussion, @aschemmel-tech to incorporate the "link to a coding guideline" approach. RolandJentschETAS: How we go on with requirements for tooling addressed from feature requirements? For example for flatbuffer tooling (flatc) . See https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/pull/2720/changes#r2993400962 - should be documented as "tool_req", for this the need shall be also linkable to "feat_req" and the description in tool management process adapted (@RolandJentschETAS), please also add the tool to the tool list in score repository (@OliverHeilwagen). eclipse-score/process_description#619 - open review comments, @masc2023 to reset @pahmann review if he is not available, @aschemmel-tech to approve |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Apr-07, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Open topics for Audit on April-14 - see eclipse-score/process_description#518 - priority on "development processes", agenda proposal to be done based on this by @aschemmel-tech eclipse-score/process_description#633 Participants: MoM: Discussed eclipse-score/process_description#633, @RolandJentschETAS will check to implement the Platform Architecture as a new work product including workflow Ongoing discussion, how to resolve the documentation topic for the module folders, as proposed here https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/general/folder.html, @RolandJentschETAS, @aschemmel-tech , @AlexanderLanin, @MaximilianSoerenPollak are involved in the discussion |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Apr-14, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Apr-21, 09-10 o'clock Agenda: Participants: MoM: Process status (Audited, open findings, tools implemented) observable how? - to make progress see also general process community meeting Apr-23 agenda. @antonkri showed proposal for reporting of process definition and implementation status on a central place - liked by the community, @antonkri will work to show this in a sphinx needs documentation.
@PandaeDo showed his current work on checking process implementation in the modules (by python tool) plus the document list (which also includes documents status): e.g. https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/platform_management_plan/documentation_management.html#feature-documentation eclipse-score/process_description#642 - impact of non-mandatory architecture views. (see eclipse-score/process_description#654) - link to "Comp" instead, but not for "Feat" because this is located in the score repository instead. - We agree that the "fulfils" should be an optional link. Completeness is to be shown by the "belongs_to". Discussion on Safety Analysis change proposal: see eclipse-score/docs-as-code#490, eclipse-score/process_description#657, #2789 - xml tooling can be used as an alternative method to document the FMEA/DFA but it will always create the needs elements required by the current process description. We could take over the proposal of having the safety analysis displayed as table by using a needstable. It is not necessary to define the failure modes as needs elements. Baselibs Safety Analysis review: #2777 - merged, is an example for the new DFA template usage. Discussion on module template: eclipse-score/module_template#58 - post poned to seperate meeting. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Apr-28, 09-10 o'clock Participants: MoM: Planning for processes next Maturity Level: #2825 last open topics - Open topic (but not to be solved for this PR): where should best be the feature safety wp planning located platform or module. (@aschemmel-tech to resove). Example for new deployment? PR for logging (link to be provided by @RolandJentschETAS ) is dependent on reference integration, may be merged next week. Discussion on the pytest usage: #2717 (comment) - currently the process says it is only used as part of ITF, but it is used also stand alone in different versions. So @alekseyborisyukvalidas will visit the testing community to ask if this pytest use will / shall be part of our verification processes. Safety/Process community agrees that we should only have one version of pytest used in S-CORE. Tool list update is part of the release checklist, tooling should be used to establish the list. safety analysis examples baselibs and questions - #2820 and #2841 - discussed in interested round (@masc2023, @aschemmel-tech, @PandaeDo) - FMEA should be linkable also to static architecture. @aschemmel-tech cannot attend next Tuesday meeting, @masc2023 takes over moderation. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
May-05, 09-10 o'clock Participants: MoM: Planning for processes next Maturity Level: Verification in ML1 (see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/) but eclipse-score/process_description#70 is done? - not discussed due to absence of @pahmann What about the implementation process - proposal is that @PandaeDo and @RolandJentschETAS will team on this topic. @RolandJentschETAS has now documented also the reference_integraton folder here: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/general/folder.html |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
May-12, 09-10 o'clock Participants: MoM: https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/pulls
PRC - Process Development Community (view)
Folder structure as in https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/general/folder.html was presented to architecture community by @RolandJentschETAS - no objections. Question on sphinx needs links from AoU to the originating architecture element: We consider this as not needed, as all the AoUs of any module and the platform are collected in the module/platfom safety manual(s). Eclipse Functional Safety Committee presented by Eclipse Foundation (which is based on the Eclipse Safety Process: https://www.eclipse.org/projects/effsp/ and https://www.eclipse.org/projects/effsp/operations.php), nomination/election will start now. Generally we have a positive impression about this. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
May-19, 09-10 o'clock Participants: MoM: Audit report received (not the publishable version) - @aschemmel-tech checked against MoM and will document in process description (as part of #2911). Feedback from the Technical Lead Circle (see https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516#discussioncomment-16927020): Verification Report was worked on in different initiatives. There is something implemented in docs-and-code: https://eclipse-score.github.io/docs-as-code/main/how-to/dashboards_and_quality_gates.html - TLs will decide how to pilot and implement this approach (based on the verification report template - https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/verification/guidance/verification_report_template.html). Verification Report for 0.7 release PR by @RolandJentschETAS see: https://eclipse-score.github.io/reference_integration/pr-226/verification_report/platform_verification_report.html (currently only has unit test reports) Interesting read on infrastructure community's topics: https://eclipse-score.github.io/infrastructure/ After metamodel change in eclipse-score/process_description#621 merged: decide how to roll-out this process change. (i.e. changes to docs-as-code and then to score, module_template, other modules) - should be supported by @RSingh1511 Compare also Product Implement Planning, v0.8, e.g. How to deal with FFI requirements in our process? E.g. logging module contains a lib which should be able to be used by every ASIL B component without the risk of memory corruption. But on its functionality we only have QM rated requirements (as it is only used for diagnostics and development). We could have one ASIL B req for this like "implement as FFI ...". But additionally we need to specify what we expect in terms of verification of these components. Which verification in addition to QM level do we expect? - Only if we can argue "co-existence" we could deviate from complete ASIL B development of the respective library. @ANegm-ETAS will look into that and will create a PR with a proposal. -> note there is already the issue #1122 for this
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/requirements/platform_assumptions/index.html#aou_req__platform__testing - wish is to describe better what the integrator is expected to do, e.g. repeat all unit tests on target (always), re-check structural coverage (if compiler/processor are very different) - post-poned to Thursday |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Answer to the question above "Assumed Platform Safety Requirements: ... Are the platform AoU meaned with that or something else?": Something else, as it is also written in the module safety manual template: "... the following safety related stakeholder requirements are assumed to define the top level functionality (purpose) of the module. I.e. from these all the feature and component requirements implemented are derived". Will update the existing module safety manuals with the respective requirements so one can see the examples (see #2919) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Answers to the above: 1. Yes, understanding correct 2. Module Safety manual contain also links to existing stakeholder requirements. There are no additional requirements defined in these documents. If their level of detail is too low to understand what the module does these can be accompanied by feature requirements derived from these stakeholder requirements. 3. There is no special linking. Always Stakeholder <- Feature <- Component. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
May-26, 09-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda: Status: MoM: Discussed status of module templates, now removed into module_templates repo, for the time being Tools and Platform templates stays in process_description #2911, recheck on thursday meeting |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Meetings Minutes of S-CORE Safety Team.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions