Skip to content

Add HealthMonitoring requirements #3089

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
pawelrutkaq wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+54 −1
Open

Add HealthMonitoring requirements #3089

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c715c1c
Add HealthMonitoring requirements
pawelrutkaq Jul 16, 2026
57725d6
Review fixes
pawelrutkaq Jul 22, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
52 changes: 52 additions & 0 deletions docs/features/lifecycle/requirements/index.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1068,6 +1068,45 @@ Monitoring, Notification and Recovery
The :term:`Launch Manager` shall support configuring the :term:`Interval` of
the internal health check executions.

.. feat_req:: Health Monitor deadline supervision
:id: feat_req__lifecycle__hm_deadline
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: ASIL_B
:derived_from: stkh_req__execution_model__processes[version==1]
Comment thread
pawelrutkaq marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
:status: invalid
:version: 1
:valid_from: v1.0.0

The :term:`Health Monitor` shall support deadline supervision to allow

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Jul 22, 2026

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.

Feature requirement should not refer to a component name but to the feature : "lifecycle feature" (see also updates in PR 3068). Also valid for the below feature requirements.

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

will sound strange i think but corrected

monitoring timely execution within application to detect timing violations.

@SimonKozik SimonKozik Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think following version reads easier and still provide the same message:

The :term:Health Monitor shall provide deadline supervision to detect timing violations during application execution.

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Jul 22, 2026

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.

corrently it says "within application" - is this intended? Because it can be understood that the supervision is only possible in ONE application.

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

corrected to plural


.. feat_req:: Health Monitor logical supervision
:id: feat_req__lifecycle__hm_logical
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: ASIL_B
:derived_from: stkh_req__execution_model__processes[version==1]
Comment thread
pawelrutkaq marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
:status: invalid
:version: 1
:valid_from: v1.0.0

The :term:`Health Monitor` shall support logical supervision to allow
monitoring execution flow within application to detect logical errors.
Comment thread
pawelrutkaq marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Comment thread
pawelrutkaq marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated

.. feat_req:: Health Monitor checkpoint supervision
:id: feat_req__lifecycle__hm_checkpoint
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: ASIL_B
:derived_from: stkh_req__execution_model__processes[version==1]
Comment thread
pawelrutkaq marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
:status: invalid
:version: 1
:valid_from: v1.0.0

The :term:`Health Monitor` shall support checkpoint supervision to allow
monitoring periodic execution within application to detect failures.

@SimonKozik SimonKozik Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you meant alive supervision here. I would propose to reword as follow:

The :term:Health Monitor shall provide alive supervision to detect deviations from the expected execution of application activities.

Please note that I'm not fully happy with deviations from the expected execution of application activities wording, but it follows two other proposals. Feel free to propose alternative wording that doesn't go into too much details (as this is a high level requirement).

If this proposal is accepted, then ID would need to change as well.

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq Jul 21, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"alive supervision' is so unspecific that it can mean anything. Waiting for SafetyMnaager reply.

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Jul 22, 2026

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.

I would prefer something like "... support alive monitoring based on checkpionts to allow ..." as I think it is just a "variant " of alive monitoring. Please note that also the Launch Manager is planned to have alive monitoring, see https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/features/lifecycle/architecture/launch_manager.html#feat_arc_dyn__lifecycle__alive_monitoring - therfore maybe also hint e.g. in a note to this "other variant" of alive monitoring?

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thus i dont want to point here alive. it makse later mess when dicussing it since the term would land in multiple places.


Logging
-------

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1241,3 +1280,16 @@ Configuration file
:valid_from: v1.0.0

The Launch Manager shall have a means to validate the configuration offline.

.. feat_req:: Health Monitor configuration file support

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Jul 22, 2026

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 PR 3068 will be a feature requirement already for this: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-3068/features/lifecycle/requirements/index.html#feat_req__lifecycle__config_file_support - so please remove or make this a component requirement instead.

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

:id: feat_req__lifecycle__hm_config_support
:reqtype: Functional
:security: NO
:safety: ASIL_B
:derived_from: stkh_req__functional_req__file_based[version==1]
:status: invalid
Comment thread
pawelrutkaq marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
:version: 1
:valid_from: v1.0.0

The :term:`Health Monitor` shall provide modular configuration file support to
configure health checks.

@SimonKozik SimonKozik Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure what is meant by this requirement...

Do you mean split-able configuration? By this I mean, a single application should be able to have alive configuration in one file and deadline + logical configuration in another file?
Or do we mean that part of configuration can came from C++ code and another part from a file?
Or maybe that we should simply be able to read config from a file?

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Jul 22, 2026

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.

I understand it that it should not be one big file for all processes and supervisions?

@pawelrutkaq pawelrutkaq Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes shall be per app file

Loading