Codestin Search App

aschemmel-tech · 2025-10-06T10:35:46Z

Resolves: #1432

github-actions · 2025-10-06T10:42:03Z

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

Resolves: #1432

4og · 2025-10-08T11:13:45Z

@aschemmel-tech, What is the folder structure for two subcomponents: the wrapper and the nlohmann_json? Do we need to split the requirements.rst document into two documents?
It makes sense to discuss this case in the process community.

4og · 2025-10-08T11:24:03Z

docs/modules/baselibs/json/docs/architecture/index.rst

+   :status: valid
+   :included_by: logic_arc_int__baselibs__json
+
+.. logic_arc_int_op:: Dump


Suggested change

.. logic_arc_int_op:: Dump

.. logic_arc_int_op:: Write

to be consistent with the naming in https://github.com/eclipse-score/baselibs/blob/main/score/json/i_json_writer.h

aschemmel-tech · 2025-10-13T11:30:31Z

@aschemmel-tech, What is the folder structure for two subcomponents: the wrapper and the nlohmann_json? Do we need to split the requirements.rst document into two documents? It makes sense to discuss this case in the process community.

Added folder split as defined in https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/general/folder.html#module-folder-structure.
No split of requirements, see reasoning in https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-1846/modules/baselibs/json/docs/json_wrapper/requirements/index.html, no discussion in process community needed.

4og · 2025-10-15T10:56:15Z

@aschemmel-tech, thank you. See also the discussion about the comp_req__json__validation:
https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1239?sort=new#discussioncomment-14636056

Resolves: #1432

aschemmel-tech · 2025-10-16T07:26:25Z

@aschemmel-tech, thank you. See also the discussion about the comp_req__json__validation: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1239?sort=new#discussioncomment-14636056

removed/merged the validation requirement as requested in the meeting

4og · 2025-10-24T07:53:44Z

docs/modules/baselibs/json/docs/json_wrapper/requirements/index.rst

+   :realizes: PROCESS_wp__requirements_comp
+
+Due to low complexity, the requirements of the JSON component were not split into the "sub" components
+"JSON Wrapper" and ""nlohman_json". Reasoning is the low number of requirements (only about ten).


redundant quote

Suggested change

"JSON Wrapper" and ""nlohman_json". Reasoning is the low number of requirements (only about ten).

"JSON Wrapper" and "nlohman_json". Reasoning is the low number of requirements (only about ten).

4og · 2025-10-24T07:54:20Z

docs/modules/baselibs/json/docs/json_wrapper/requirements/index.rst

+Due to low complexity, the requirements of the JSON component were not split into the "sub" components
+"JSON Wrapper" and ""nlohman_json". Reasoning is the low number of requirements (only about ten).
+The component split was done nevertheless, because "JSON Wrapper" is implemented as part of the S-CORE project and
+""nlohman_json" is reused from open source.


one more redundant quote

Suggested change

""nlohman_json" is reused from open source.

"nlohman_json" is reused from open source.

4og · 2025-10-24T07:54:46Z

docs/modules/baselibs/json/docs/json_wrapper/requirements/index.rst

+The component split was done nevertheless, because "JSON Wrapper" is implemented as part of the S-CORE project and
+""nlohman_json" is reused from open source.
+
+So the requiremnts for "JSON Wrapper" are documented in :need:`doc__json_requirements`


typo in "requirements" word

4og · 2025-10-24T07:59:57Z

docs/modules/baselibs/json/docs/requirements/index.rst

-   The integrity of input JSON data shall be ensured by the user.
+   The user shall provide a string as input which is not corrupted due to HW or QM SW errors.
+
+   Note: This could be achieved by using a safe read-only filesystem for JSON file storage or a CRC protection on the JSON file content.


I would write "checksum protection" instead of CRC.
The CRC is a specific algorithm for calculating the checksum, and there are others.

4og · 2025-10-24T08:01:50Z

docs/modules/baselibs/json/docs/architecture/index.rst

+Requirements Linked to Component Architecture
+---------------------------------------------
+
+see the "fulfils" links in static and dynamic architecture below.


Suggested change

see the "fulfils" links in static and dynamic architecture below.

See the "fulfils" links in static and dynamic architecture below.

4og · 2025-10-24T08:02:56Z

docs/modules/baselibs/json/docs/architecture/index.rst

+Description
+-----------
+
+JSON provides an abstraction layer to unterlying implementations, in first iteration there is only one


unterlying -> underlying

4og · 2025-10-24T08:04:30Z

docs/modules/baselibs/json/docs/architecture/index.rst

+
+JSON provides an abstraction layer to unterlying implementations, in first iteration there is only one
+implementation provided. But generally there is a "Wrapper" and an "Implementation" lower-level component.
+


I would add an explanation about the exception we have. The JSON writing functionality is implemented in the wrapper currently.

This also means that the comp_req__json__serialization should be linked with the wrapper static architecture and not nlohmann.

ok, added design decision and moved the requirement fulfillment

4og · 2025-10-24T08:05:58Z

docs/modules/baselibs/json/docs/architecture/index.rst

   :included_by: logic_arc_int__baselibs__json
+
+.. logic_arc_int_op:: Write
+   :id: logic_arc_int_op__baselibs__tofile


wording "tofile" may be misleading.
We support writing both to file and to a buffer in memory

renamed operations

4og · 2025-10-24T09:18:27Z

@aschemmel-tech, looks good. Please squash commits when merging.

aschemmel-tech requested a review from 4og October 6, 2025 10:36

aschemmel-tech marked this pull request as ready for review October 6, 2025 10:43

aschemmel-tech requested a review from a team as a code owner October 6, 2025 10:43

Split JSON-Library in two components

f78af61

Resolves: #1432

aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-split-json-lib branch from 832cb66 to f78af61 Compare October 6, 2025 10:55

4og reviewed Oct 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

Split JSON-Library in two components - fixes

eeb1e5b

Resolves: #1432

aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-split-json-lib branch from e9a0c93 to eeb1e5b Compare October 16, 2025 07:23

4og requested changes Oct 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

Split JSON-Lib in two - more fixes

3098390

4og approved these changes Oct 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

aschemmel-tech merged commit 5426561 into main Oct 24, 2025
8 checks passed

aschemmel-tech deleted the aschemmel-tech-split-json-lib branch October 24, 2025 09:20

	"JSON Wrapper" and ""nlohman_json". Reasoning is the low number of requirements (only about ten).
	"JSON Wrapper" and "nlohman_json". Reasoning is the low number of requirements (only about ten).

	""nlohman_json" is reused from open source.
	"nlohman_json" is reused from open source.

	see the "fulfils" links in static and dynamic architecture below.
	See the "fulfils" links in static and dynamic architecture below.


		JSON provides an abstraction layer to unterlying implementations, in first iteration there is only one
		implementation provided. But generally there is a "Wrapper" and an "Implementation" lower-level component.

Conversation

aschemmel-tech commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

4og commented Oct 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech commented Oct 13, 2025

Uh oh!

4og commented Oct 15, 2025

Uh oh!

aschemmel-tech commented Oct 16, 2025

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!

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!

4og commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants