Error propagation and handling

[ShoroukRamzy]

This PR resolves issue #23 by implementing a robust error handling mechanism for activity failures.

Design diagrams illustrating the new failure handling sequences have been added to the feo/Design directory. A comprehensive guide for verifying this feature is available in the new TESTING.md in examples/rust/mini-adas

Proposal:

Currently the implementation handles step and shutdown errors as following:

1. Modify Activity Trait: Change step() and shutdown() to return a Result<(), ActivityError>.

2. Update Worker: The worker will catch any Err and send a failure signal to the Scheduler.

3. Enhance Scheduler: The scheduler will handle failures as following:

   • On Step Failure: Initiate a graceful shutdown of the entire system.
   • On Shutdown Failure: Log the specific activity's failure but continue to shut down all other activities to prevent the system from hanging.

Thanks!

[github-actions]

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Starting local Bazel server (8.3.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: ee91d500-97fb-4b9d-a5af-3059a70003f6
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
DEBUG: Rule 'rules_boost+' indicated that a canonical reproducible form can be obtained by modifying arguments integrity = "sha256-pZY3kJDKUFN829ZdmWOrWu/MhcmnwKJyhAsIfTbfVPU="
DEBUG: Repository rules_boost+ instantiated at:
  <builtin>: in <toplevel>
Repository rule http_archive defined at:
  /home/runner/.bazel/external/bazel_tools/tools/build_defs/repo/http.bzl:394:31: in <toplevel>
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
WARNING: For repository 'rules_cc', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'googletest', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'rules_python', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 4 packages loaded
Loading: 4 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Analyzing: target //:license-check (5 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (5 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (71 packages loaded, 9 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (150 packages loaded, 1885 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (156 packages loaded, 7055 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (156 packages loaded, 7055 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (159 packages loaded, 9071 targets configured).
[7 / 13] Creating runfiles tree bazel-out/k8-opt-exec-ST-d57f47055a04/bin/external/score_tooling+/dash/tool/formatters/dash_format_converter.runfiles [for tool]; 0s local
INFO: From Generating Dash formatted dependency file ...:
INFO: Successfully converted 2 packages from Cargo.lock to bazel-out/k8-fastbuild/bin/formatted.txt
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: 15.494s, Critical Path: 0.75s
INFO: 13 processes: 3 disk cache hit, 9 internal, 1 processwrapper-sandbox.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 13 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]

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

[masc2023]

Please follow for documentation the S-CORE process guidelines, address requirements, architecture changes in the according folders, if would also be from advantage, to use Change Management Issue to track the topics accordingly

Currently the documentation is still in score repo, but as part of next release, that shall be moved her and can be properly integrated, compare https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516#discussioncomment-15039732

[ShoroukRamzy]

Hi @masc2023,

Thank you for your feedback. I will review your concerns. please note that I am not trying to change the architecture or requirements, I already implement these existing requirements Activity stepping error and Activity shutdown error

At this time, I will proceed with removing the previously included design sequence diagrams. Concurrently, I will examine the process guidelines to ensure that all future contributions to the design documentation are submitted through the appropriate channels and in the correct format.

Thanks!

[ShoroukRamzy]

Hi @masc2023,

you mean these architecture docs https://eclipse-score.github.io/reference_integration/main/_collections/score_process/process/process_areas/index.html, is it right?

[masc2023]

Hi @masc2023,

you mean these architecture docs https://eclipse-score.github.io/reference_integration/main/_collections/score_process/process/process_areas/index.html, is it right?

No, these are only the general process guidelines, the real documentation for the FEO Module are here: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/modules/feo/index.html

FEO Component architecture are defined in this folder, https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/modules/feo/feo/docs/architecture/component_architecture.html

These should now be transferred completely to the FEO Module Folder and that would be then the right place to add your diagram and link it properly to the requirements.

There are also Feature High Level requirements, but they should be reflected on the component level, too.
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/features/frameworks/feo/architecture/feature_architecture.html

[ShoroukRamzy]

@masc2023, I removed the sequence diagrams. Thanks!

[ShoroukRamzy]

Hi @masc2023,
you mean these architecture docs https://eclipse-score.github.io/reference_integration/main/_collections/score_process/process/process_areas/index.html, is it right?

No, these are only the general process guidelines, the real documentation for the FEO Module are here: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/modules/feo/index.html

FEO Component architecture are defined in this folder, https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/modules/feo/feo/docs/architecture/component_architecture.html

These should now be transferred completely to the FEO Module Folder and that would be then the right place to add your diagram and link it properly to the requirements.

There are also Feature High Level requirements, but they should be reflected on the component level, too. https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/features/frameworks/feo/architecture/feature_architecture.html

Okay great, Thank you for the clarification @masc2023!

[ShoroukRamzy]

Hi @masc2023, I removed the design sequence diagrams to be added in another PR in the relevant docs as we discussed.
Could you please let me know your feedbacks and help me merge this PR as I don't have permissions to merge?
Thanks!

[ShoroukRamzy]

Hi @armin-acn,
Could you please review this PR when you have time and help me merge it if possible? Thanks!

[armin-acn]

Thanks for the nice PR! I would like to ask for two small changes but will also ask @artemsheinacn to take a look.

[armin-acn]

This should be changed to call bazel instead of cargo, because cargo builds are no longer supported.

[artemshein]

Hi @ShoroukRamzy, @armin-acn, in my view we don't put tests into mini-adas. We have a separate tests agent in one of our internal PRs and a tests scripts runner. Otherwise the PR looks good to me.

[ShoroukRamzy]

Hi @artemshein,
Thank you for your feedback, I removed the testing doc from mini-adas .

[ShoroukRamzy]

Hi @armin-acn, if you don't have any further comments, Could you please help me merge this PR?

[armin-acn]

Hi @ShoroukRamzy, please do not only remove the test documentation, but also the test code itself (error injection) from the commit. As @artemshein mentioned, we have an internal PR that will be published soon, that is intended to provide a very similar functionality but in a more generic approach.
We would be happy to receive your feedback on that PR once it is there.

[ShoroukRamzy]

Hi @ShoroukRamzy, please do not only remove the test documentation, but also the test code itself (error injection) from the commit. As @artemshein mentioned, we have an internal PR that will be published soon, that is intended to provide a very similar functionality but in a more generic approach. We would be happy to receive your feedback on that PR once it is there.

Hi @armin-acn, thank you for the clarification. I removed all test code I added.

[ShoroukRamzy]

Hi @ShoroukRamzy, please do not only remove the test documentation, but also the test code itself (error injection) from the commit. As @artemshein mentioned, we have an internal PR that will be published soon, that is intended to provide a very similar functionality but in a more generic approach. We would be happy to receive your feedback on that PR once it is there.

Hi @armin-acn, thank you for the clarification. I removed all test code I added.

Hi @armin-acn, I don't have sufficient permissions to merge this PR, Could you please help me merge it if it's ready? Thanks!