-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
mw/com: Remove SOME/IP configuration structs #406
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
Merged
bemerybmw
merged 6 commits into
eclipse-score:main
from
sahithi-nukala:sah_remove_someip_config_structs
May 18, 2026
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
567af9e
mw/com: Delete SOME/IP configuration struct source files
sahithi-nukala 2b708f9
mw/com: Remove SOME/IP from configuration layer
sahithi-nukala fa27a47
mw/com: Remove SOME/IP from plumbing layer
sahithi-nukala a040f56
mw/com: Update documentation to remove SOME/IP references
sahithi-nukala afc3335
Restore SOME/IP snippet in README example
sahithi-nukala 57d3d7c
Merge branch 'main' into sah_remove_someip_config_structs
bemerybmw File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -2,8 +2,7 @@ | |
|
|
||
| The main configuration items we have to deal with in `mw::com` are mappings from "logical" service instances to real | ||
| existing service instances with their concrete used technical binding. | ||
| Currently, we prepare our configuration to support the following technical bindings: | ||
| - SOME/IP | ||
| Currently, our configuration supports the following technical bindings: | ||
| - Shared Memory IPC | ||
|
|
||
| Of course, we do foresee arbitrary extensions. | ||
|
|
@@ -36,13 +35,12 @@ The `ServiceTypeDeployment` aka `Service Interface Deployment` in AUTOSAR speech | |
| The binding independent `ServiceType` is defined within AUTOSAR metamodel by its Service Interface and its | ||
| corresponding [service type identification](#service-type-identification). | ||
| So within the configuration we might need to express, how a certain abstract `ServiceType` shall be represented in a | ||
| `SOME/IP` or a `LoLa` binding. For instance, both bindings might use their own, distinct service ID | ||
| for identification and also the embedded service parts (events, fields, methods) might have different identification and | ||
| properties between a `SOME/IP` and a `LoLa` binding. | ||
| `LoLa` binding. For instance, the binding uses its own distinct service ID | ||
| for identification and also configuration of the embedded service parts (events, fields, methods). | ||
|
|
||
| Note here, that these `ServiceTypeDeployment`s are independent of their concrete instances! E.g. an AUTOSAR service | ||
| `/a/b/c/InterfaceName` will be once mapped to a `SOME/IP` service id **_SIDn_** and this applies then to ALL instances of | ||
| this `/a/b/c/InterfaceName` service with a `SOME/IP` mapping! | ||
| `/a/b/c/InterfaceName` will be once mapped to a `LoLa` service id **_SIDn_** and this applies then to ALL instances of | ||
| this `/a/b/c/InterfaceName` service with a `LoLa` mapping! | ||
|
|
||
| ### `ServiceInstanceDeployment` | ||
| The `ServiceInstanceDeployment` maps concrete instances (identified by an [Instance Specifier](#instance-specifiers)) of | ||
|
|
@@ -69,8 +67,7 @@ config artifacts with the applications. | |
|
|
||
| For `ServiceTypeDeployment` this is not so clear. In case of `ServiceTypeDeployments` for local only communication, | ||
| which is the case of our `LoLa` binding, it is also the job of the ECU integrator, as it is only a local ECU | ||
| optimization. Without any effect to the boardnet. In case of `SOME/IP` `ServiceTypeDeployments`, it might be expected | ||
| for the future, that parts of `ServiceTypeDeployment` come from central toolchains (Symphony). | ||
| optimization. Without any effect to the boardnet. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Instance Specifiers | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -184,8 +181,8 @@ instances. | |
| What is **not** visible here: Whether `"abc/abc/TirePressurePort"` is a provided or required service instance. Both | ||
| could be possible, since we do support 1 to n mappings in both cases. | ||
| Here we have a mapping of `"abc/abc/TirePressurePort"` to two different concrete technical instances: The first one is a | ||
| SOME/IP based instance (so it is most likely used for inter ECU, network communication) and the second is a concrete | ||
| instance based on our shared memory IPC for ECU local communication. | ||
| hypothetical SOME/IP based instance (so it is most likely used for inter-ECU network communication) and the second is a | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. But now you have to include the SOME/IP snippets in the sample config above again ... otherwise this text makes no sense - because it references/talks about "The first one ..." which you removed from the config snippet. |
||
| concrete instance based on our shared-memory IPC for ECU-local communication. | ||
|
|
||
| #### C++ representation of configuration and mappings | ||
| The JSON representation of the configuration shown above gets read and parsed at application startup within call to one | ||
|
|
||
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here (and only here) I would keep the
SOME/IPpart. Why, because it shows, which general flexibility we do foresee within our config. So keep the old text - maybe with a slight adaption:hypothetic SOME/IP based instance (so ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done