First version of new API for Launch Manager by SimonKozik · Pull Request #377 · eclipse-score/lifecycle

SimonKozik · 2026-07-28T14:35:25Z

First draft of new API for Launch Manager

github-actions · 2026-07-28T14:36:18Z

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: be4cdf3d-a9a4-4482-a6fc-b6734432b48b
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: 
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded)
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 (80 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

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

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

Analyzing: target //:license-check (144 packages loaded, 2767 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (153 packages loaded, 6739 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (159 packages loaded, 8222 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (159 packages loaded, 8222 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (163 packages loaded, 10231 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 10351 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 10409 targets configured).
[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
[16 / 16] no actions running
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: 26.473s, Critical Path: 2.42s
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 · 2026-07-28T14:47:58Z

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

paulquiring · 2026-07-29T05:29:13Z

It looks like it could work. To see if this if this is the right fit in combination with score::mw::com a test would be good before we switch to this.

NicolasFussberger · 2026-07-30T14:09:00Z

It looks like it could work. To see if this if this is the right fit in combination with score::mw::com a test would be good before we switch to this.

I like this suggestion. Would it be possible to add a dummy details/lm_controlimpl.hpp with a test that just shows how the API interaction would look like from the users perspective?

pawelrutkaq

I would fix most of descriptions as they are bloated

pawelrutkaq · 2026-08-04T07:14:56Z

+
+    /// @brief Factory method — create a connected ILmControl instance.
+    ///
+    /// Establishes the mw::com connection to the Launch Manager.


I'd say interface shall be silent about internals (in this case mw::com)

I'm not sure how we can avoid that...

The instance_specifier param has to be the mw::com instance specifier and additionally, there is also requirement that mw::com has to be initialized by the user, before this method is called.

Do you have a proposal in mind?

@NicolasFussberger why do we expose mw::com instance specifier to the user ? This means we expose the service definition to the user. It feels like you can put any name here - did i miss something that mw_com in no longer internal communication channel ?

As far as I know the instance specifier name passed here has to be defined in the mw::com config file.
So it would be either the user can pass it to the API,
or we would need to use a hardcoded name and documentation tells the user to configure exactly this name in the mw::com config file.

I would say we need more time to experiment on how this should be configured.
We can find solution later when we have more experience with mw::com

It has to be passed, but it shall be internal inho. This string connects to EXACT declaration of service type and its instance. So we shall provide an "mw_com_config fragment" with opur definition which user shall put into its json file until mw_com will not solve the issue of multiple configs. But exposing this to user sounds like bad idea.

Should this interface then be marked WIP somehow that its probably going to change? or we remove this immediately, really (i prefer second option)

First version of new API for Launch Manager

c12a0be

github-project-automation Bot added this to LCM - Lifecycle & Health FT Jul 28, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Backlog in LCM - Lifecycle & Health FT Jul 28, 2026

SimonKozik requested a deployment to workflow-approval July 28, 2026 14:35 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

paulquiring self-requested a review July 29, 2026 05:29

paulquiring approved these changes Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

anmittag assigned SimonKozik Jul 29, 2026

FScholPer reviewed Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread score/launch_manager/src/lm_control/src/run_target_activation_source.hpp

pawelrutkaq self-requested a review July 29, 2026 08:30

Reusing existing errors

9313887

SimonKozik requested review from MaciejKaszynski, NicolasFussberger, anmittag, antonkri and ramceb as code owners July 30, 2026 13:41

SimonKozik requested a deployment to workflow-approval July 30, 2026 13:41 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

MaciejKaszynski reviewed Jul 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread score/launch_manager/src/lm_control/src/fixed_string.hpp

Comment thread score/launch_manager/src/lm_control/src/ilm_control.hpp Outdated

Comment thread score/launch_manager/src/lm_control/src/ilm_control.hpp

Applying changes resulted from the review comment

dee4110

SimonKozik requested a deployment to workflow-approval July 31, 2026 10:23 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

NicolasFussberger reviewed Jul 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread score/launch_manager/src/lm_control/src/ilm_control.hpp

pawelrutkaq requested changes Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Applying review suggestion

90488c6

SimonKozik requested a deployment to workflow-approval August 5, 2026 07:25 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

Addressing review comments

8293677

SimonKozik requested a deployment to workflow-approval August 5, 2026 09:44 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

FScholPer previously approved these changes Aug 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

NicolasFussberger previously approved these changes Aug 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

Marking Create method as work in progress, improving FixedString ux

f8a846a

SimonKozik dismissed stale reviews from NicolasFussberger and FScholPer via f8a846a August 6, 2026 14:03

SimonKozik requested a deployment to workflow-approval August 6, 2026 14:04 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

Uh oh!

Conversation

SimonKozik commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 28, 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 Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

paulquiring commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

NicolasFussberger commented Jul 30, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pawelrutkaq left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawelrutkaq Aug 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SimonKozik Aug 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawelrutkaq Aug 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

NicolasFussberger Aug 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SimonKozik Aug 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawelrutkaq Aug 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawelrutkaq Aug 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

github-actions Bot commented Jul 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading