Feature/load new lifecycle config by NicolasFussberger · Pull Request #208 · eclipse-score/lifecycle

NicolasFussberger · 2026-05-19T12:44:30Z

Introduces an interface in src/launch_manager_daemon/config for loading a launch manager configuration file
Introduce an implementation of this interface using flatbuffer
Introduce unit tests for the new code

Note: The code is not actually in use yet. The python script which does the translation from the user-facing json configuration to the flatbuffer json format is not part of the PR and will be added in a follow up PR.
Furthermore, the launch manager code needs to be adapted to use the new structure.

Background:

In the last months we had defined a new user-facing configuration format (see src/launch_manager_daemon/config/config_schema/launch_manager.schema.json).
However, this new format is currently still mapped to the old configuration files (to processes / process groups). So the code is not actually reading the new configuration file

Relates To: #209

github-actions · 2026-05-19T12:45:30Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //: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: c7bf8963-f47b-478e-9fd6-66b1dd2d3e94
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (38 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (86 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (138 packages loaded, 2720 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (150 packages loaded, 5404 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (155 packages loaded, 5453 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (158 packages loaded, 8002 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (162 packages loaded, 10142 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (163 packages loaded, 10268 targets configured).
[7 / 15] checking cached actions
[12 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileClasses external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath_classes; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox ... (2 actions running)
[14 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 23.467s, Critical Path: 2.79s
INFO: 16 processes: 12 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 16 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

github-actions · 2026-05-19T12:51:29Z

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

NicolasFussberger · 2026-05-19T13:28:41Z

+    module_name = "score_baselibs",
+    commit = "498a4b256c9073602140243d30c33b106e279f75",
+    remote = "https://github.com/eclipse-score/baselibs.git",
+)


@paulquiring Any idea when a new baselibs release will be available containing the new flatbuffer functionality?

Next release of baselibs: planed on 21.05 or 22.05. See https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2390?sort=new#discussioncomment-16987333

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T07:09:29Z

+{
+    Native = 0,
+    Reporting = 1,
+    ReportingAndSupervised = 2,


Would just Supervised be sufficient? I guess Supervised applications have to be reporting or else they cannot be supervised?

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T07:17:28Z

+    Terminated = 1
+};
+
+struct ComponentAliveSupervision


All struct members are default initialized to 0. I think to have some default values here which make sense could be helpful.

This applies also to all other configuration structs.

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T07:24:44Z

+
+}  // namespace score::launch_manager::config
+
+#endif


Suggested change

#endif

#endif // CONFIG_HPP

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T07:29:17Z

+///
+/// @note As of now, everything is expected in a single config file.
+/// Even though some fields appear as optional in the json schema, they are only optional if the configuration would be
+/// split across multiple files. As only a single file is supported, the single config will contain all fields.


"Even though some fields appear as optional in the json schema, they are only optional if the configuration would be split across multiple files"

That is strange, why splitting configuration into more then one file influencing what optional means?

I would expect that everything which is std::optional in config.hpp simply does not need to configured.

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T07:36:22Z

+    {
+        return fallback_run_target_;
+    }
+    const AliveSupervisionConfig& alive_supervision() const


it's quite a mix of styles.
setRunTargets and fallback_run_target, just one will do the job.

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T08:02:15Z

+    }
+
+  private:
+    friend class Builder;


A comment would have been helpful to mention that this saves the need to write getters in the builder class.

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T08:09:06Z

+/// @note As of now, everything is expected in a single config file.
+/// Even though some fields appear as optional in the json schema, they are only optional if the configuration would be
+/// split across multiple files. As only a single file is supported, the single config will contain all fields.
+class Config


It should be also possible to implement the Config member functions in the config.cpp file.

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T08:31:28Z

+    std::vector<std::string> result;
+    if (vec != nullptr)
+    {
+        result.reserve(vec->size());


I'm happy to see this line.

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T08:45:20Z

+        {
+            if (ev != nullptr && ev->key() != nullptr)
+            {
+                result.emplace(ev->key()->str(), safeString(ev->value()));


I guess the key cannot be nullptr?

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T08:51:29Z

+
+SwitchRunTargetAction convertRequiredSwitchRunTargetAction(const fb::SwitchRunTargetAction* sa)
+{
+    return convertSwitchRunTargetAction(sa).value();


value can throw.

.value_or(std::string{}) as alternative?

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T12:26:09Z

+    module_name = "score_baselibs",
+    commit = "498a4b256c9073602140243d30c33b106e279f75",
+    remote = "https://github.com/eclipse-score/baselibs.git",
+)


Next release of baselibs: planed on 21.05 or 22.05. See https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2390?sort=new#discussioncomment-16987333

paulquiring · 2026-05-20T12:37:17Z

+constexpr int32_t kExpectedSchemaVersion = 1;
+constexpr double kSecondsToMilliseconds = 1000.0;
+
+uint32_t secondsToMs(double seconds)


#include <iostream> #include <cstdint> #include <string_view> #include <cassert> constexpr double kSecondsToMilliseconds = 1000.0; uint32_t secondsToMs(double seconds) { return static_cast<uint32_t>(seconds * kSecondsToMilliseconds); } int main () { assert(secondsToMs(0.000500) == 0);// holds is this a problem ? assert(secondsToMs(0.001000) == 1); }

if this is a problem we might need to change the fbs

NicolasFussberger added 10 commits May 18, 2026 15:37

Provide new configuration interfaces

73fd84e

Upgrade baselibs & flatbuffer version

164b832

Use baselibs flatbuffer helper

2325ae7

Config refactoring

5090054

Use bazel rule to generate fb file

d73fa63

Extend documentation

dcaa534

Narrow RecoveryAction options

5203bbc

Remove optional from required fields

c9367b1

Remove unrelated test output

fb24424

Run formater on new code

b5f777f

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval May 19, 2026 12:44 — with GitHub Actions Failure

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval May 19, 2026 12:44 — with GitHub Actions Error

NicolasFussberger requested a review from paulquiring May 19, 2026 12:45

NicolasFussberger commented May 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

paulquiring reviewed May 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

NicolasFussberger commented May 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 19, 2026

License Check Results

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

NicolasFussberger commented May 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading