Mf type erased binding - #897
Open
crimson11 wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
crimson11
requested review from
LittleHuba,
bemerybmw,
castler,
hoe-jo and
limdor
as code owners
August 11, 2026 11:40
crimson11
marked this pull request as draft
August 11, 2026 11:41
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
crimson11
force-pushed
the
mf_type_erased_binding
branch
from
August 15, 2026 23:12
762d009 to
4e4dcd7
Compare
| SCORE_LANGUAGE_FUTURECPP_PRECONDITION_PRD_MESSAGE( | ||
| data_ != nullptr, "Proxy::GetEventDataStorage: Managed memory data pointer is Null"); | ||
| auto& service_data_storage = detail_proxy::GetServiceDataStorage(*data_); | ||
| const auto event_entry = service_data_storage.events_.find(element_fq_id); |
crimson11
force-pushed
the
mf_type_erased_binding
branch
6 times, most recently
from
August 17, 2026 07:24
c743b6f to
f7c4b7f
Compare
| std::optional<SendTraceCallback> send_trace_callback) noexcept | ||
| { | ||
| const impl::SampleAllocateePtrView<void> view{sample}; | ||
| auto ptr = view.template As<lola::SampleAllocateePtr>(); |
| // coverity[autosar_cpp14_a15_5_3_violation : FALSE] | ||
| Result<impl::SampleAllocateePtr<void>> SkeletonEvent::Allocate(SampleAllocateeGuard guard) noexcept | ||
| { | ||
| if (event_data_control_composite_.has_value() == false) |
| { | ||
| const QualityType event_quality_type = parent_.GetInstanceQualityType(); | ||
| SCORE_LANGUAGE_FUTURECPP_PRECONDITION_PRD_MESSAGE( | ||
| !((event_quality_type == QualityType::kASIL_QM) && (quality_type == QualityType::kASIL_B)), |
| // ReferenceNextEvent returns the slot with the highest timestamp in the exclusive range (min, max). | ||
| // We pass 0 and TIMESTAMP_MAX to span the entire valid timestamp range, so it always returns the | ||
| // most recently written sample regardless of its timestamp. | ||
| const auto slot_result = consumer_event_data_control_local.ReferenceNextEvent(EventSlotStatus::EventTimeStamp{0U}, |
crimson11
force-pushed
the
mf_type_erased_binding
branch
2 times, most recently
from
August 22, 2026 17:41
c4e56f1 to
7106182
Compare
| // Overload for SkeletonEvent (uses Attorney to bypass private access) | ||
| template <typename SampleType> | ||
| score::mw::com::impl::lola::ElementFqId ExtractId(const score::mw::com::impl::lola::SkeletonEvent<SampleType>* binding) | ||
| score::mw::com::impl::lola::ElementFqId ExtractId(const score::mw::com::impl::lola::SkeletonEvent* binding) |
| template <typename BindingType> | ||
| score::mw::com::impl::lola::ElementFqId ExtractId(const BindingType* binding) | ||
| template <typename SampleType> | ||
| score::mw::com::impl::lola::ElementFqId ExtractId(const score::mw::com::impl::lola::ProxyEvent<SampleType>* binding) |
crimson11
force-pushed
the
mf_type_erased_binding
branch
4 times, most recently
from
August 23, 2026 16:14
b7e51a5 to
cd11c56
Compare
crimson11
marked this pull request as ready for review
August 23, 2026 16:51
Changed the previously typed EventDataStorage now to a type-erased storage.
This commit bases on the previous commit, which made the event/field data storage in the LoLa binding type erased. Now or general approach is, that the binding layer is type-erased! This was already the case for methods, but has now be changed for events/fields as well. This commit only deals with the skeleton-side! Proxy-side will be handled in a seperate commit. Important: This change greatly simplfies our architecture! I.e. on binding level we don't need any GenericSkeleton specific entities anymore, because on binding level Skeleton and SkeletonEvent are now type erased and therefore "generic"! Because the skeleton side is (in specific cases) also providing `SamplePtrs` (not only SampleAllocateePtrs), we needed in this commit already some "void"/type-erased extensions to the SamplePtr. This will be further adjusted in the upcoming commit, which adapts the proxy-side (making it type-erased).
crimson11
force-pushed
the
mf_type_erased_binding
branch
from
August 24, 2026 16:25
cd11c56 to
c360e8d
Compare
LittleHuba
marked this pull request as draft
August 27, 2026 08:53
crimson11
marked this pull request as ready for review
August 27, 2026 08:58
Contributor
Author
|
This PR is huge! No chance to break it down further. Thus, we will see conflicts popping up during review-phase. This is expected. Conflicts will be resolved after 1st review phase is done and then (obviously) before merge! |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
No description provided.