Cleanup alive monitor config loading by WilliamRoebuck · Pull Request #477 · eclipse-score/lifecycle

WilliamRoebuck · 2026-08-14T14:52:00Z

This is the first step of a refactor to better integrate alive supervision and launch manager. The main change in this PR is constructing alive supervision objects component by component using the new config, instead of all components at once, stage by stage. In addition, the PR:

Removed unused config & constants
Replaced many strings with IdentifierHashes
Removed alive monitor config wrappers

github-actions · 2026-08-14T14:53:45Z

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 (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 1995e73e-9fd5-4de0-8262-e6a06f20a274
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: 
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 (33 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (88 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (103 packages loaded, 49 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (152 packages loaded, 3161 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (161 packages loaded, 6925 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (167 packages loaded, 9402 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (172 packages loaded, 9451 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (173 packages loaded, 9575 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (177 packages loaded, 11589 targets configured).
[11 / 16] [Prepa] JavaToolchainCompileClasses external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath_classes
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: 25.854s, Critical Path: 0.34s
INFO: 16 processes: 4 disk cache hit, 12 internal.
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 · 2026-08-17T09:22:41Z

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

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T11:16:23Z

+    saf::ifappl::Checkpoint& checkpoint_r,
+    const uint16_t bufferSize)
+    : ISupervision(id),
+      k_aliveReferenceCycle(timers::TimeConversion::convertMilliSecToNanoSec(f_aliveCfg_r.reporting_cycle_ms)),


Do you think we could change the underlying type to use std::chrono so that we can use duration_cast and delete our implementation of TimeConversion. Might be better to do on another issue as we could also change the configs type?

Created #483

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T11:39:13Z

-    return "/lifecycle_health_" + component_name;
+    const std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(IdentifierHash::get_registry_mutex());
+    const auto& reg = IdentifierHash::get_registry();
+    const auto it = reg.find(component_name.data());


I would probably stay away from using the registry to get actual data. I think it would work right now however this relies on something else creating the IdentifierHash before. I think right now this works because we have the ConfigAdapter that does this but in the future we won't.

Think we should also make that registry private somehow.

I think we could just use the hash as the IPC name anyways right?

Strings are added to the registry on construction so it should always work. Even if it doesn't, we fall back to the hash if the lookup fails. I could add a method get_string_from_hash() and make the registry private. What do you think?

I don't think there is any benefit in having the name in the IPC path as it shouldn't be edited from outside our interfaces. So I'd say always use hash for the path.

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T11:41:28Z

+    {
+        return "/lifecycle_health_" + it->second;
+    }
+    return "/lifecycle_health_" + std::to_string(component_name.data());


I think std::to_chars is lighter

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T11:42:02Z

@@ -58,7 +59,7 @@ class ISupervision

    /// @brief Get the name of the configuration element for the corresponding supervision container
    /// @return std::string_view   View over the name of the corresponding supervision configuration container


update doc string

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T11:42:12Z

@@ -42,7 +43,7 @@ class ISupervision
    /// @brief Constructor
    /// @param [in] f_supervisionConfigName_p       Unique name set by configuration


update docstring

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T12:30:23Z


 #include "score/mw/launch_manager/alive_monitor/details/factory/FlatCfgFactory.hpp"
 #include "score/mw/launch_manager/alive_monitor/details/ifappl/MonitorIfDaemon.hpp"
 #include "score/mw/launch_manager/alive_monitor/details/supervision/Alive.hpp"


need std::algo include

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T12:31:43Z

-    else
+    swClusterHandler.reserve(supervised_components);
+
+    // In a later refactoring step, components will register their own alive supervision and provide their identifier.


Can you make an issue to track this, just so the comment doesn't get unchecked.

Created #486

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T12:38:27Z

    : osClock{f_osClock},
      cycleTimer{&osClock},
-      swClusterHandlers{},
+      swClusterHandler{std::make_unique<factory::FlatCfgFactory>()},


Do you think it would make sense to expose this as a param to get easier testing?

This will be moved around in the next step, I'll revisit this then

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T12:39:44Z


-bool PhmDaemon::construct(const AliveMonitorConfig& config, const SupervisionBufferConfig& f_bufferConfig_r) noexcept(
-    false)
+bool PhmDaemon::construct(const std::vector<configuration::ComponentConfig>& config) noexcept(false)


Can you make a static PhmDaemon::Create method instead.

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-08-17T12:42:57Z

+    // In a later refactoring step, components will register their own alive supervision and provide their identifier.
+    // For now, we iterate through them all here.
+
+    LM_LOG_DEBUG() << "Software Cluster Handler starts constructing workers";


I don't think we use the "Software Cluster" term anymore, would be good to remove from logs.

WilliamRoebuck requested review from FScholPer, MaciejKaszynski, NicolasFussberger, anmittag, antonkri, pawelrutkaq and ramceb as code owners August 14, 2026 14:52

github-project-automation Bot added this to LCM - Lifecycle & Health FT Aug 14, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Backlog in LCM - Lifecycle & Health FT Aug 14, 2026

WilliamRoebuck requested a deployment to workflow-approval August 14, 2026 14:52 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

WilliamRoebuck marked this pull request as draft August 14, 2026 15:32

WilliamRoebuck requested a deployment to workflow-approval August 17, 2026 09:14 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

WilliamRoebuck added 8 commits August 17, 2026 10:21

Changes build

1bb62c9

Remove unused config

b7c3c84

Remove checkpoint id

f9c17d7

Remove a string

585e8e4

Construct supervisions by component 1

bfe01ab

Construct supervisions by component 2

38e3764

Update some docs

791c564

Correct UT times

9ce1e97

WilliamRoebuck force-pushed the feature/alive-mon-new-config branch from 7fb7950 to 9ce1e97 Compare August 17, 2026 09:21

WilliamRoebuck requested a deployment to workflow-approval August 17, 2026 09:22 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

Add buffer size constant

0ae85db

WilliamRoebuck requested a deployment to workflow-approval August 17, 2026 09:35 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

WilliamRoebuck marked this pull request as ready for review August 17, 2026 10:30

MaciejKaszynski mentioned this pull request Aug 17, 2026

Removing Config Adapter #455

Open

MaciejKaszynski requested changes Aug 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

WilliamRoebuck mentioned this pull request Aug 17, 2026

Alive monitor refactoring: Allow components to register their own alive supervision #486

Open

		@@ -58,7 +59,7 @@ class ISupervision

		/// @brief Get the name of the configuration element for the corresponding supervision container
		/// @return std::string_view View over the name of the corresponding supervision configuration container

		@@ -42,7 +43,7 @@ class ISupervision
		/// @brief Constructor
		/// @param [in] f_supervisionConfigName_p Unique name set by configuration

Uh oh!

Conversation

WilliamRoebuck commented Aug 14, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

License Check Results

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 17, 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!

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

github-actions Bot commented Aug 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading