Open
Conversation
antonkri
requested review from
PandaeDo,
aschemmel-tech,
masc2023 and
pahmann
as code owners
masc2023
reviewed
May 6, 2026
Contributor
masc2023
left a comment
masc2023
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New files copyright 2026
antonkri
force-pushed
the
ankr_process_overview
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6d5901a to
f39a898
Compare
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
masc2023
requested changes
May 6, 2026
Contributor
masc2023
left a comment
masc2023
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, but not sure, if all information is on the right place, better in score, let's discuss it tomorrow in the process community meeting to get feedback
PandaeDo
reviewed
May 6, 2026
Contributor
PandaeDo
left a comment
PandaeDo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would also appriciate if we can have a introduction for that. For example I didn't get the point in "Process Area Overview" why we are green in "Process req. status". There are some requriements still open. So this might be a litte bit confusing when you don't take the tag into account. I would say that only "done_automation" shall pay into the direction of completed. By the way this would be a helpful tool support for a current task that we have.
pahmann
requested changes
May 6, 2026
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As this PR is still marked as WIP, here are some points I will check later when it is no longer WIP
- This change set is not clear due to its size, see where things can be split.
- It introduces styles, diagrams, links to score features and tools. Split the PR in logical parts at least by proper dependent commits or independent PRs when reasonable.
- The 5 commit messages are not good clusters to follow the logical flow. Modify commits that they guide through the desired change.
- No description is provided to motivate details in the Pull Request, so add a description.
- The title of the pull request is very generic, let it describe the change.
- There is link to other repo elements, but we are not linking to score or other repos to keep the process independent from the implementation.
As it is WIP, I assume all this will be reflected and anyway be worked on.
antonkri
force-pushed
the
ankr_process_overview
branch
4 times, most recently
from
2aac9e5 to
87b39aa
Compare
antonkri
force-pushed
the
ankr_process_overview
branch
from
87b39aa to
d2fb752
Compare
…s_status Add two new module columns to all 5 Process Area tracker tables: - Lifecycle (eclipse-score/lifecycle, #909): PA3 feat_arc 🔄94%, comp_arc 🔄94%, code ✅, unit+comp_int tests ✅, detailed design 🔄50% - Security/Crypto (eclipse-score/inc_security_crypto, #905): feat_req ✅(42/42), all other deliverables ❌ Open Updated implementation status lines: - PA1: 7/7 → 9/9 ✅ - PA2: 29%→26% (7/27) - PA3: 24%→19% (5/27) - PA4: 50%→47% (17/36) - PA5: 36%→33% (12/36) Updated SKILL.md: module table, known CRs, description, RST snapshot
…eliverables as columns
…ion after table transpose
…les found) Unit test counts per module: - Baselibs: 395, Communication: 227, Logging: 63, Orchestrator/Lifecycle: 3 - Persistency: 14, Time: 46, Config Mgmt: 19 Comp. integration test counts: - Baselibs: 1, Communication: 44, Orchestrator/Lifecycle: 7, Time: 3 (was incorrectly ❌) Security/Crypto tests are placeholder stubs (test_main.cpp tests inline add()) → stays ❌ Open PA5 status: 33% → 36% (13/36) due to Time comp-int fix
Contributor
Author
|
@masc2023 yes, agree. I will move it. |
Count TEST()/TEST_F()/TEST_P() macros, def test_() functions, and #[test] attributes across all module repos: - Baselibs: 4,663 unit / 13 comp-int - Communication: 2,374 unit / 42 comp-int - Logging: 619 unit / 0 comp-int - Orchestrator: 2 unit / 9 comp-int (eclipse-score/lifecycle repo) - Persistency: 138 unit / 0 comp-int - Time: 296 unit / 11 comp-int - Config Mgmt: 143 unit / 0 comp-int - Lifecycle: 2 unit / 9 comp-int (eclipse-score/lifecycle repo) - Security/Crypto: open (placeholder stubs only)
LOC counted from source files (excl. tests, docs, mocks): - Baselibs: ~119,400 LOC - Communication: ~71,300 LOC - Logging: ~22,900 LOC - Orchestrator: ~38,300 LOC (shared lifecycle repo) - Persistency: ~8,700 LOC - Time: ~11,700 LOC - Config Mgmt: ~5,400 LOC - Lifecycle: ~38,300 LOC (shared lifecycle repo) - Security/Crypto: no src yet
…o PA5 Logging: 1 test (test_remote_logging) Orchestrator: 3 tests (test_orchestration_with_persistency, test_showcases, test_ssh) Persistency: 6 tests (test_orchestration_with_persistency, test_multiple_kvs_per_app) Tests are cross-module, maintained in eclipse-score/reference_integration. Added footnote explaining the cross-module nature.
Replace [*] footnote notation with inline '(cross-module)' label. Fixes: WARNING: Footnote [*] is not referenced. [ref.footnote]
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.