feat: Quality pack targets by GabrielPinheiro7891 · Pull Request #150 · eclipse-score/time

GabrielPinheiro7891 · 2026-08-05T11:52:50Z

Provide Bazel targets: unit tests, component tests, code coverage.
Added documentation

github-actions · 2026-08-05T11:53:48Z

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]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 7d9b5635-8c8c-4275-b3b8-3d557182e12b
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
WARNING: For repository 'platforms', the root module requires module version platforms@1.0.0, but got platforms@1.1.0 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 3 packages loaded
Analyzing: target //:license-check (4 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (4 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (69 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (146 packages loaded, 397 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (159 packages loaded, 3944 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 6298 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 6308 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 6308 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 6308 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (172 packages loaded, 8195 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (175 packages loaded, 11421 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (176 packages loaded, 11429 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (176 packages loaded, 11429 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (176 packages loaded, 11429 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (176 packages loaded, 11429 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (177 packages loaded, 11555 targets configured).
[12 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileClasses external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath_classes; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox ... (2 actions, 1 running)
INFO: From Generating Dash formatted dependency file ...:
INFO: Successfully converted 2 packages from Cargo.lock to bazel-out/k8-fastbuild/bin/formatted.txt
[14 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox
[15 / 16] Building license.check.license_check.jar (); 0s disk-cache, multiplex-worker
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: 32.584s, Critical Path: 2.43s
INFO: 16 processes: 12 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 16 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 · 2026-08-05T11:58:19Z

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

ryan-steel · 2026-08-05T13:31:31Z

This doesn't match up with the score process module_template.

I've started the component requirements work for the other components following the guidelines, see #151 and #149. I think we should have this structure across all the components. The actual build of the docs themselves won't work until the update to docs-as-code 6.0 is merged in #148 (updating to use docs_bundles so that we can have docs alongside source).

Please update to match the template.

I pushed the commit Update to match module_template , to match the template. However, like you said, until docs-as-code 6.0 isn't merged this will not work as we get:

"broken_references": [
{
"testcase": "testcase__SystemClockTest__NowReturnsTimepointSuitableForDurationArithmetic_nckqh",
"missing_need": "comp_req__system_time__snapshot"
},
{
"testcase": "testcase__SteadyClockTest__NowReturnsTimepointSuitableForDurationArithmetic_dhwjw",
"missing_need": "comp_req__steady_time__snapshot"
},
{
"testcase": "testcase__HighResSteadyClockTest__NowReturnsTimepointSuitableForDurationArithmetic_ogazc",
"missing_need": "comp_req__high_res_steady_time__snapshot"
},
{
"testcase": "testcase__VehicleClockTest__NowReturnsSynchronizedStatusAndTimepoint_xggob",
"missing_need": "comp_req__vehicle_time__snapshot"
},
{
"testcase": "testcase__VehicleClockTest__InitForwardsToBackend_vsaqs",
"missing_need": "comp_req__vehicle_time__lifecycle"
}
]

…ality-pack-targets

ryan-steel · 2026-08-28T13:01:56Z

These are a good start, but I think we could probably do with some more at this level.

thread safety for getInstance singleton access

thread safety for reading time snapshots

linux and qnx platform support

error handling (that we log on errors)

that we return empty snapshot when backend not initialized

AoU that user will initialize backend where necessary

Co-authored-by: Ryan Steel <str1yok@bosch.com> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Pinheiro <gabriel.pinheiro@etas.com>

The requirement describes type safety enforcement across time domains, which is functional behavior rather than an interface contract.

…ality-pack-targets

BjoernAtBosch · 2026-08-24T08:33:01Z

+   ``SteadyClock::Now`` shall return a snapshot backed by
+   ``std::chrono::steady_clock`` without requiring initialization.


Suggested change

``SteadyClock::Now`` shall return a snapshot backed by

``std::chrono::steady_clock`` without requiring initialization.

``SteadyClock::Now`` shall return a snapshot backed by

``std::chrono::steady_clock`` without requiring prior initialization.

BjoernAtBosch · 2026-08-24T08:45:24Z

+   ``HighResSteadyClock::Now`` shall return a monotonic
+   ``ClockSnapshot`` without requiring prior initialization, and shall
+   not expose ``Init`` / ``IsAvailable`` / ``WaitUntilAvailable`` on the
+   facade (using them is a compile error).


Please either remove the details about Init and Availability or add them to the SteadyClock and SystemClock, also.

BjoernAtBosch · 2026-08-24T08:46:36Z

+   ``SystemClock::Now`` shall return a snapshot backed by
+   ``std::chrono::system_clock`` without requiring initialization.


Suggested change

``SystemClock::Now`` shall return a snapshot backed by

``std::chrono::system_clock`` without requiring initialization.

``SystemClock::Now`` shall return a snapshot backed by

``std::chrono::system_clock`` without requiring prior initialization.

BjoernAtBosch · 2026-08-24T12:48:35Z

Not sure, if those are feature requirements or more component ones.
The feature requirements are defined in the score repository: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/tree/main/docs/features/time/requirements

already changed on previous commit

BjoernAtBosch · 2026-08-24T13:03:03Z

Hmh - where is this file requested - can't find something about it in the score documentation?

Its not required. It describes which Bazel targets/tags this repo exposes to the Score docs-as-code

BjoernAtBosch · 2026-09-01T10:02:33Z

  =========================  ===============
  Metric                     Value
  =========================  ===============
-  Requirements with source   2/5 (40.0%)
-  Requirements with test     5/5 (100.0%)
-  Requirements fully linked  2/5 (40.0%)
-  Tests linked to reqs       5/27 (18.5%)
+  Requirements with source   8/8 (100.0%)
+  Requirements with test     5/8 (62.5%)
+  Requirements fully linked  5/8 (62.5%)
+  Tests linked to reqs       5/318 (1.6%)
  =========================  ===============


Shouldn't those kind of things be done by tooling and stored as a build artifact generated by some workflow?

you're right, its better. Changed it

BjoernAtBosch · 2026-09-01T10:04:32Z

+# Source files carrying `// # req-Id:` markers, exposed to
+# //score/time:docs_bundle via its code_targets attribute.
+filegroup(
+    name = "requirement_marked_sources",
+    srcs = ["clock.h"],
+    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
+)
+


:-O Is that really needed? (If yes, I'm asking myself why we have tooling ...)

Yes, the API forces it. docs_bundle(...) from @score_docs_as_code//:docs.bzl takes an explicit code_targets = [...] list. the linker doesn't glob the tree because Bazel needs declared inputs. So something has to enumerate the files, either as one big filegroup at the root or (as done here) a small requirement_marked_sources filegroup per source package that the root docs_bundle composes.

BjoernAtBosch · 2026-09-01T12:01:52Z

Please rename this file to index.rst (the folder is named "requirements" already)

There is already an index.rst on this folder

Yes, that's the "default one". Please have a look how this is done in this PR: #153

BjoernAtBosch · 2026-09-01T15:37:41Z

Nice requirements so far!

Co-authored-by: Björn Hornburg <Bjoern.Hornburg@de.bosch.com> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Pinheiro <gabriel.pinheiro@etas.com>

github-project-automation Bot added this to TIM - Time FT Aug 5, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to In Progress in TIM - Time FT Aug 5, 2026

GabrielPinheiro7891 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval August 5, 2026 11:52 — with GitHub Actions Error

ryan-steel reviewed Aug 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

GabrielPinheiro7891 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval August 6, 2026 14:22 — with GitHub Actions Error

GabrielPinheiro7891 requested a review from ryan-steel August 6, 2026 14:24

GabrielPinheiro7891 added 2 commits August 6, 2026 15:27

AZB #101279: Add Bazel targets for unit/component tests and coverage

64049ad

Update to match module_template

7444a7c

GabrielPinheiro7891 force-pushed the feature/AZB-101279-Quality-pack-targets branch from 160bc42 to 7444a7c Compare August 6, 2026 14:28

GabrielPinheiro7891 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval August 6, 2026 14:28 — with GitHub Actions Error

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feature/AZB-101279-Qu…

627b8c4

…ality-pack-targets

GabrielPinheiro7891 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval August 20, 2026 11:36 — with GitHub Actions Error

Update to match module_template and build

1cd949b

GabrielPinheiro7891 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval August 20, 2026 14:50 — with GitHub Actions Error

Fix alphabetical attribute ordering

f4be4e9

GabrielPinheiro7891 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval August 20, 2026 15:18 — with GitHub Actions Error

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feature/AZB-101279-Qu…

8355239

…ality-pack-targets

GabrielPinheiro7891 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval August 21, 2026 13:31 — with GitHub Actions Error

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feature/AZB-101279-Qu…

9f1840e

…ality-pack-targets

GabrielPinheiro7891 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval August 25, 2026 13:32 — with GitHub Actions Error