Extending feature architecture with Control API behavior and Recovery Actions by NicolasFussberger · Pull Request #800 · eclipse-score/lifecycle

NicolasFussberger · 2026-10-15T14:45:25Z

No description provided.

Copilot

🟡 Changes recommended

Recovery and request-rejection paths remain incomplete, and the detailed shutdown diagram is no longer included in published documentation.

3 open findings

Guard dependent steps after rejected requests · New
Add failure branches for recovery actions · New
Restore the missing Running-to-Off shutdown diagram · New

What changed in this PR

This documentation-only PR extends the Launch Manager architecture with Control API behavior and recovery scenarios.

Changes:

Documents queued and forced Run Target activation.
Expands recovery escalation and supervision-failure diagrams.
Updates lifecycle examples, shutdown sequences, and configuration fields.

File	Description
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/startup_shutdown.rst	Updates activation references.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/run_target_activation.rst	Documents Control API scenarios.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/recovery_actions.rst	Expands recovery behavior.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/health_monitoring.rst	Links supervision failure recovery.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/components_run_targets.rst	Extends the example description.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/launch_manager_supervision_failure.puml	Adds supervision failure sequence.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/launch_manager_startup.puml	Clarifies configured startup target.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/launch_manager_small_example_graph.puml	Expands targets and dependencies.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/launch_manager_shutdown.puml	Includes StateManager shutdown.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/launch_manager_run_target_off.puml	Expands dependency-ordered termination.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/launch_manager_run_target_minimal.puml	Illustrates Minimal target startup.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/launch_manager_run_target_failure.puml	Adds transition failure recovery.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/launch_manager_random_crash.puml	Expands component recovery alternatives.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/control_interface_startup.puml	Shows registration, queries, and callbacks.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/control_interface_queued_activation.puml	Illustrates queued requests.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/control_interface_forced_activation.puml	Illustrates forced activation.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/config_params_static.puml	Adds activation retry count.
docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/alive_monitoring_start.puml	Shows supervision deactivation during shutdown.

🧠 Review effort: Balanced

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

github-actions · 2026-10-15T15:00:38Z

Documentation preview for this pull request is available at:
pr-800: https://eclipse-score.github.io/lifecycle/pr-800/

danth · 2026-10-16T08:58:57Z

+
+note over sm,LM
+Launch Manager activates its initial Run Target "Minimal", which requires StateManager.
+StateManager depends on setup_filesystems.sh, so it is started first.


The sequence is correct - but I'm not sure if the setup_filesystems.sh component needs to be shown here. I would tend to only show the state manager

I was trying to have an example Run Target graph that shows different variants for the Ready Conditions.
The different diagrams show transitions to different targets.

This here is the only diagram that shows setup_filesytem.sh activation as an example of a self-terminating process with ReadyCondition:terminated, the other ones always start with SM being active.

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-10-16T09:46:16Z

+If a Run Target transition fails, the Launch Manager executes the Run Target Recovery Action as configured for the affected Run Target.
+The currently only supported Run Target Recovery Action is the activation of the `fallback Run Target`.
+
+.. feat_arc_dyn:: Launch Manager - Run Target Transition Failure


I think we could add one last diagram to also show the escalation to wachdog.

The watchdog escalation is a bit fuzzy, I assume this will change a lot.
I'll prepare a proposal for next weeks score meeting, I wonder if we shall update the watchdog stuff only afterwards.

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-10-16T09:49:58Z

      :align: center

-   Note: If a Restart Recovery Action is configured then only the crashed component is restarted, not dependent components.
+   The diagram shows a component crash during an active Run Target (outside of a Run Target transition).


I'm not sure we should detail the "implementation" of recovery actions here, so not show what happens if you have a restart RA configured as I don't think this is on the feature requirement level but component.

I think ideally this would be moved to component architecture level since then you could also link the comp_req I think.

I guess for now this is fine though since we don't have this level.

You are right. Now that the feature requirements are largely moved to component level there is much that is not specified on the feature level at all.
I would also say since we have no component level right now we keep this at feature level and move things down once we can

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-10-16T10:00:53Z

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+' *******************************************************************************


I think this might be too complicated and too big.

I think it might be good to just have a simple showcase of
Minimal -> Startup (force = False)
Startup -> Off (force = True)

Also not sure if the last stop state manager and de active filesystem is needed.

I think it can be simplified like you mention.
The reason to add this "Full" Run Target was to show that there is a request in the queue that is then being removed when the force request comes in.

With the suggested simplification there would be no queued request to removed. Though only removed this probably does not make a huge simplification.

I left the transition to Off in there as this is the only place that shows the termination of setup_filesystems.sh
Readers might be wondering what has to be done to shutdown such a component, which is not depicted in any other diagram.

I added now subheadings to the diagram

MaciejKaszynski · 2026-10-16T10:05:06Z

+1. **Queued Activation**
+
+   In this mode, requests to activate a Run Target are placed in a queue and processed sequentially by the Launch Manager.
+   A State Manager can issue multiple Run Target transition requests and they will be executed sequentially by the Launch Manager.


Maybe add what happens if a queued switch fails?

should it be
Queue RT1
Queue RT2
RT1 fails
Switch to Fallback
RT2 switch removed from the Queue?

Might be good to even add this as a requirement.

Added this to Timos PR https://github.com/eclipse-score/lifecycle/pull/808/changes#r4314522348

From the discussions in Score I think your assumption is correct. Queue is cleared after failure.
I'll update the description and note in the recovery action diagram that queue is cleared

NicolasFussberger · 2026-10-19T12:22:43Z

+2. **Forced Activation**
+
+   In this mode, requests to activate a Run Target are performed immediately by the Launch Manager, potentially interrupting any ongoing transitions.
+   A forced activation request bypasses the queue and is executed immediately and removes any queued requests.


Description can be more clear, see header file

/// @PARAM[in] force If false (default), the request is queued behind any
/// in-progress activation and executed afterwards.
/// If true, any in-progress activation is cancelled, the
/// queue is cleared, and this activation starts immediately.
@SimonKozik

NicolasFussberger added 2 commits October 15, 2026 15:52

Add Run Target activation diagrams

351224c

Sequence diagram extensions

529ea01

github-project-automation Bot added this to LCM - Lifecycle & Health FT Oct 15, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Backlog in LCM - Lifecycle & Health FT Oct 15, 2026

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval October 15, 2026 14:45 — with GitHub Actions Error

NicolasFussberger requested a balanced review from Copilot October 15, 2026 14:45

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of NicolasFussberger October 15, 2026 14:46

View session

Copilot AI reviewed Oct 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/control_interface_forced_activation.puml

Comment thread docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/_assets/launch_manager_random_crash.puml

Comment thread docs/features/lifecycle/architecture/startup_shutdown.rst

Recovery Action extensions

977b987

NicolasFussberger force-pushed the control_seq_diagrams branch from 4df478a to 16b409e Compare October 16, 2026 06:58

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval October 16, 2026 06:58 — with GitHub Actions Error

Recovery Action improvements

342af34

NicolasFussberger force-pushed the control_seq_diagrams branch from 16b409e to 342af34 Compare October 16, 2026 07:15

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval October 16, 2026 07:15 — with GitHub Actions Error

Mention abstract interface link

f038a03

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval October 16, 2026 08:19 — with GitHub Actions Error

color error path red

e46867c

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval October 16, 2026 08:40 — with GitHub Actions Error

danth reviewed Oct 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

MaciejKaszynski requested changes Oct 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

NicolasFussberger commented Oct 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

Solving first round of review comments

3b0ae37

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval October 19, 2026 13:35 — with GitHub Actions Error

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval October 19, 2026 13:59 — with GitHub Actions Error

Diagram fixes

6deee4c

NicolasFussberger force-pushed the control_seq_diagrams branch from e882fa5 to 6deee4c Compare October 19, 2026 14:12

NicolasFussberger had a problem deploying to workflow-approval October 19, 2026 14:12 — with GitHub Actions Error

More diagram improvements

659714a

NicolasFussberger requested a deployment to workflow-approval October 20, 2026 06:42 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

		@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
		' *******************************************************************************

Conversation

NicolasFussberger commented Oct 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🟡 Changes recommended

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This branch is waiting to be deployed

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants