Distinguishing labels for Functional and Non-Functional Requirements

[elwazana]

With the new implementation of requirements as ConceptInstances, instead of the old ReChunk, it is difficult to distinguish between Function/Non-Functional requirements. As such appending the correct prefix becomes difficult. The idea originated from issue: #970

[samm82]

The "FR" prefix is being added, but since the addition of NFRs in a meaningful sense is still in progress (#1229), there isn't any reference to an NFR, so we'll have to wait for #1229 (or a least a section of its fix) to see if the "NFR" prefix is working probably.

A related note is that while the prefix is being added to the reference, just "R" is used when referring to an FR in the traceability matrices:

[smiths]

Sounds good @samm82.

[Mornix]

Unless I’m misunderstanding, NFRs should be individually referable as they’re ConceptInstances. Similarly, NFRs can be included in the traceability matrices by adding the ConceptInstances to the ChunkDB.

As for the 'R', that’s hardcoded at the example-level as part of the old traceability matrices. The automated traceability matrices are the very large ones. #1197 is outstanding and is posed to add “views” to the large traceability matrices to get smaller sunsets similar to the existing manual ones. Ideally when #1197 is closed, the manual matrices will be completely gone.

[samm82]

@Mornix Just confirmed that NFRs display correctly when referenced - this issue can be closed/address with #1197 then.