Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ES should use a table for the "startup script" #583

Open
CDKnightNASA opened this issue Apr 2, 2020 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #660
Open

ES should use a table for the "startup script" #583

CDKnightNASA opened this issue Apr 2, 2020 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #660
Assignees

Comments

@CDKnightNASA
Copy link
Contributor

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The ES "startup script" file (a CSV-like configuration of which applications and libraries to load at runtime) is not very well designed (using sscanf) and not consistent with how cFS generally manages runtime configurations with tables.

Describe the solution you'd like
Replace the .scr code with a table.

Describe alternatives you've considered
One alternative is to update the .scr parser, and/or use one/more industry-standard file formats (JSON, YAML) and an open-source parser that we would include (copy into) in our codebase. General consensus is that the CCB prefers going with the standard table mechanism.

Additional context
Might be interesting to see if there's a way to change a table without having to re-compile...Otherwise would be helpful to have a document detailing how, post deploy, an operator can update the ES configuration without having to do a full re-deploy.

Requester Info
[email protected]

@CDKnightNASA CDKnightNASA self-assigned this Apr 2, 2020
@CDKnightNASA
Copy link
Contributor Author

ref issue #576

@CDKnightNASA
Copy link
Contributor Author

So it looks like the existing es_UT.c does not actually load/run any applications/libraries, I will assume the new es_UT.c does not need to either.

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor

skliper commented Apr 28, 2020

As a coverage test all you need to cover is the unit under test... any actual load/run would be a functional test (requires full stack, not OSAL stubs).

CDKnightNASA added a commit to CDKnightNASA/cFE that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2020
CDKnightNASA added a commit to CDKnightNASA/cFE that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2020
CDKnightNASA added a commit to CDKnightNASA/cFE that referenced this issue May 5, 2020
@skliper skliper added this to the 7.0.0 milestone May 12, 2020
@skliper skliper linked a pull request Aug 21, 2020 that will close this issue
@astrogeco astrogeco linked a pull request Feb 3, 2021 that will close this issue
@skliper skliper removed this from the 7.0.0 milestone Mar 30, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants