Skip to content

ConfigParser Discussion#164

Draft
Thomas-Mikhael wants to merge 2 commits intoeclipse-score:mainfrom
etas-contrib:config_parser
Draft

ConfigParser Discussion#164
Thomas-Mikhael wants to merge 2 commits intoeclipse-score:mainfrom
etas-contrib:config_parser

Conversation

@Thomas-Mikhael
Copy link

This Pull Request is to discuss the current Json ConfigParser implementation

const auto& bindingValue = bindingValue_result.value().get();
if (bindingValue == kSomeIpBinding)
{
{ // TM: Here it logs fatal and aborts, while in 974 ParseServiceTypeDeployment() it just skips it

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe a more generic question: why do we need the binding twice? Once in the serviceType and once in the serviceInstance.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because we have binding-specifics on BOTH levels. E.g. A service-id or event-id is something on the type level, but it is binding specific! ... numberOfSampleSlots is is binding and instance specific

@Thomas-Mikhael
Copy link
Author

Here's my exhaustive analysis of the current config_parser code (parameter checks)
ConfigParserChecks.txt

@bemerybmw
Copy link
Contributor

Here is a diagram that I created along with @LittleHuba about our ideas for how the refactored configuration could look.

configuration_refactoring_ideas ![configuration_refactoring_ideas drawio](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a3cb6fec-d606-4138-8c38-c3641d5982d2)

@castler castler marked this pull request as draft March 16, 2026 11:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants