Skip to content

Add integration test for mw::com add-on configurations - #1030

Open
SebSparrowHawk wants to merge 1 commit into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
SebSparrowHawk:ssp_add_on_configs_int_test
Open

Add integration test for mw::com add-on configurations#1030
SebSparrowHawk wants to merge 1 commit into
eclipse-score:mainfrom
SebSparrowHawk:ssp_add_on_configs_int_test

Conversation

@SebSparrowHawk

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This integration tests ensures that after merging two configurations, an existing instance identifer is still valid and can be used for communication. Also new service instances as defined in the add-on configuration can be created.

Comment thread score/mw/com/test/loading_add_on_configuration/consumer.cpp Fixed
Comment thread score/mw/com/test/loading_add_on_configuration/provider.cpp Fixed
Comment thread score/mw/com/test/loading_add_on_configuration/provider.cpp Fixed
Comment thread score/mw/com/test/loading_add_on_configuration/provider.cpp Fixed
@SebSparrowHawk
SebSparrowHawk force-pushed the ssp_add_on_configs_int_test branch from a665a4a to f298cbf Compare August 31, 2026 13:10
Comment thread score/mw/com/test/loading_add_on_configuration/consumer.cpp Fixed
Comment thread score/mw/com/test/loading_add_on_configuration/provider.cpp Fixed
@LittleHuba

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Please fix #1030 (review)

@SebSparrowHawk
SebSparrowHawk force-pushed the ssp_add_on_configs_int_test branch from f298cbf to 2994dfd Compare September 4, 2026 12:05
This integration tests ensures that after merging two configurations, an existing
instance identifer is still valid and can be used for communication. Also new
service instances as defined in the add-on configuration can be created.
@SebSparrowHawk
SebSparrowHawk force-pushed the ssp_add_on_configs_int_test branch from 2994dfd to 8480d1c Compare September 4, 2026 14:45

@LittleHuba LittleHuba left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In general this looks good.
I'm finding the test somewhat too simple.
What you currently do is just assign a different identifier to the same service interface.
But the reconfiguration is way more powerful.

What I would like to see are additional tests that:

  1. Add a previously unknown service interface with deployment
  2. Do something that would cause problems (like reconfiguring a previously known service instance where we already have a Skeleton/Proxy for
  3. ...

":common_resources",
":test_constants",
"//score/mw/com",
"//score/mw/com/impl:instance_specifier",

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please don't depend on impl in integration tests. This adds technical debt.

":common_resources",
":test_constants",
"//score/mw/com",
"//score/mw/com/impl:instance_specifier",

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same


// 2nd step: Load add-on configuration and merge into existing configuration
const auto service_instance_manifest_path = ParseServiceInstanceManifest(argc, argv);
const auto add_on_load_result = score::mw::com::runtime::InitializeRuntimeAddonConfiguration(

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Late to the party...
That name is a mouth full. I'd love to have something easier. E.g. score::mw::com::runtime::Reconfigure()

Why was that name chosen?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Backlog

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants