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: b6752bb5-0ea6-48ad-abcb-62bf61f6ced5
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 (37 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (80 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (89 packages loaded, 17 targets configured)

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

Analyzing: target //:license-check (156 packages loaded, 5498 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (161 packages loaded, 5541 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (161 packages loaded, 5547 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (162 packages loaded, 5547 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 7434 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (166 packages loaded, 8406 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (167 packages loaded, 10275 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (168 packages loaded, 10283 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (168 packages loaded, 10283 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (168 packages loaded, 10283 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 10409 targets configured).
[14 / 16] [Prepa] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar
[15 / 16] Building license.check.license_check.jar (); 0s disk-cache, multiplex-worker
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: 28.777s, Critical Path: 2.56s
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.

FScholPer · 2026-07-29T08:29:59Z

+
+    /// @brief Activation happened automatically as part of a recovery action,
+    ///        without an explicit State Manager request.
+    kRecoveryAction = 1


I think we should add reason

I assume this will mean we need to adapt ActivationCallback then.
https://github.com/eclipse-score/lifecycle/pull/377/changes#diff-0112cf4be18e494bec2720f425278091273c52be4ffbe12f527cd85178077895R66-R67

Do you have something in mind?

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?

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-07-30T14:34:10Z

+    /// @error kRunTargetDoesntExist Name of the requested Run Target does not exist in current configuration.
+    /// @error kCommunicationError         Connection with Launch Manager cannot be established and request cannot be
+    /// sent.
+    virtual score::Result<void> activate_run_target(std::string_view runTargetName, bool force = false) = 0;


should this not be RunTargetName

@NicolasFussberger do you remember why we went with std::string_view here?

I have feeling that RunTargetName maybe better here... As this is what probably will travel through mw::com

For consistency, RunTargetName is probably better.
Depending on how the data is represented in the mw::com interface it may then require an additional copy though.

I would not expos here any mw::com internals and go with RunTargetName

NicolasFussberger · 2026-07-31T11:04:33Z

+    /// @error kCallbackInProgress A new callback cannot be registered because the
+    ///                            current callback is still executing. Retry after it returns.
+    /// @error kInvalidArguments   The callback is empty.
+    virtual score::Result<void> register_run_target_activation_callback(ActivationCallback callback) = 0;


AFAIK within the context of the callback, you may not call other mw::methods / send events.
If this is true, it is not easily supported to trigger the next run target activation after the previous one finished (in the scope of the callback). User would need to store the information provided by the callback and then pick this up from a different thread.

@eduard-moskalchuk do you have some insights if this is true?

There was some limitations for sure with calling methods from methods callbacks. But it's our work in LM to address this issue and make the interface functional and not expose some communication channel limitations to the user.

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)

pawelrutkaq · 2026-08-04T07:15:45Z

+
+    // Non-copyable and non-movable. Polymorphic types must not be copied or
+    // moved through the interface — it would slice the concrete implementation.
+    // Transfer ownership via std::unique_ptr<ILmControl> instead.


Useless comment, AI ?

pawelrutkaq · 2026-08-04T07:16:42Z

+    /// notified asynchronously via the callback registered with
+    /// register_run_target_activation_callback().
+    /// If the queue is full, kRequestQueueIsFull is returned immediately
+    /// and the request is discarded.


AI double desc with @errors

pawelrutkaq · 2026-08-04T07:32:42Z

+    /// @error kRunTargetDoesntExist Name of the requested Run Target does not exist in current configuration.
+    /// @error kCommunicationError         Connection with Launch Manager cannot be established and request cannot be
+    /// sent.
+    virtual score::Result<void> activate_run_target(std::string_view runTargetName, bool force = false) = 0;


I would not expos here any mw::com internals and go with RunTargetName

pawelrutkaq · 2026-08-04T07:34:54Z

+    /// @error kCallbackInProgress A new callback cannot be registered because the
+    ///                            current callback is still executing. Retry after it returns.
+    /// @error kInvalidArguments   The callback is empty.
+    virtual score::Result<void> register_run_target_activation_callback(ActivationCallback callback) = 0;


There was some limitations for sure with calling methods from methods callbacks. But it's our work in LM to address this issue and make the interface functional and not expose some communication channel limitations to the user.

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

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

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

pawelrutkaq requested changes Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

NicolasFussberger commented Jul 30, 2026

Uh oh!

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!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawelrutkaq left a comment

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!

6 participants

github-actions Bot commented Jul 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading