Change Request: Tiered SW Platform (Operating System) Integration Process for Eclipse S-CORE

[odra]

Related

• Meta Feature Request: Platform request #1691
• Meta Feature Request: Platform request #1691 (comment)
• Feature Request: AutoSD Development Platform #855
• docs: sth_req for supported target platforms #1541

Change Request Type

• Feature Request/Modification
• Component Request/Modification

Reason for the Change Request?

Currently, in Eclipse S-CORE, there is no sufficient answer to these questions:

• Which operating systems shall the software created in Eclipse S-CORE run on?
• Which service level can a consumer (user/integrator) assume for an operating system?
• Which service level is required by an operating system provider?
• How to onboard a new platform?

How is the change realized?

We propose the inclusion of a tier based SW platform (operating system) definition as described here: #1691 (comment).

Note: Hardware is not included in this proposal.

Process Changes

The S-CORE process needs to include new definitions on:

• What a SW platform (operating system) is and is not
• Impact of operating system (per tier) on change requests
• Operating system Change/Inclusion Request (change platform tier, include a new platform, etc)

Architecture

The architecture specification needs to contemplate the inclusion of operating systems (per tier) in its discussions, based on process changes.

The architecture specification may need to have definition of each tier in its document, the list of operating systems per tier, etc.

Bazel Tooling

There are required changes in some bazel repositories,such as bazel_platfotms:

• list supported platforms
• organize it in a way that reflects the tier based setup
• Q: There is an open question on how this should reflect on bazel platform constrains: should the repository just "label" platform per tier or should that reflect in smart usage of constrains when triggering bazel builds (so tiers can be automatically filtered, etc).

Affected work products

• Requirements are affected by this change?
• Architecture are affected by this change?
• Analysis are affected by this change?
• Detailed Designs are affected by this change?

Impact analysis

Type of Change Request

New Feature/Component

Dependencies on other Change Requests

• Feature Request: AutoSD Development Platform #855

Estimates for realization

• Change request issue template needs to incorporate a "SW Platform (operating system) Request" type
• Any related process change request documents
• Architecture specification
• Bazel tooling (bazel_platformts, reference_integration, IFT, etc)

Impacted Roles/Teams

• Tech Leads
• Architecture
• Operations (Tooling, CI, etc)

Milestones

• clear definition of SW Platforms (operating system) and its tiers in S-CORE architecture specification and process definition
• tooling and bazel changes such as bazel_platforms

Potential Impact on Security

No impact.

Potential Impact on Safety

No impact.

Safety or Security relevance

• Safety relevant
• Security relevant

ASIL classification

No response

Expected Implementation Version

1.0

[opajonk]

@odra Maybe list #1541 also as "Dependencies on other Change Requests"?

[odra]

Added.

[masc2023]

Remarks on the name platform (overloaded use), please consider
https://eclipse.dev/score/
Where SCORE scope is defined as SW Platform,

Also many other documents use this definition since the beginning
as
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-1725/platform_management_plan/index.html
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-1725/platform_management_plan/safety_management.html
explicitly mentions this is the Platform Safety Plan,
https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description//main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html,
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-1725/requirements/stakeholder/index.html#stkh_req__overall_goals__reuse_of_app_soft

and many more

So there is currently no consensus to change that, please consider for your platform a different naming, e.g. as mentioned here
https://eclipse.dev/score/
Operating System, Runtime environment, etc.

[opajonk]

Fine for me as well - we should just settle on one meaning and keep using it, since it has lead to confusion already (cf. e.g. #1541). I can understand that from an "S-CORE-user"-point of view, using the term "platform" for "S-CORE" is logical. It is the thing my application "stands on".

[odra]

I am fine with using Operating System, let me update the change request.