WIP: Integration process documentation by antonkri · Pull Request #266 · eclipse-score/reference_integration

antonkri · 2026-06-17T13:31:16Z

Work in progress — this is a first version of the integration process documentation intended to be reviewed by the colleagues responsible for integration.

Summary

Adds step-by-step integration process documentation under docs/integration_process/:

step_1_add_module.rst – adding a module
step_2_documentation.rst – documentation
step_3_unit_tests.rst – unit tests
step_4_platforms.rst – platforms
step_5_component_tests.rst – component tests
step_6_integration_tests.rst – integration tests
step_7_reporting.rst – reporting
step_8_code_quality.rst – code quality
checklist.rst – checklist
reference.rst – reference
updates to integration_process.rst

Note

This is a WIP and a first draft. Feedback from the integration-responsible colleagues is very welcome.

github-actions · 2026-06-17T14:46:29Z

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

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T07:06:58Z

 ###################
+
+This document is a step-by-step *how-to* for module owners who want to integrate
+their own S-CORE module into the **Reference Integration** for the first time.


first time or bring back after exclusion.

or integrate in general to be a part of SCORE releases

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T07:09:26Z

+* The module builds and tests pass standalone on Linux ``x86_64``.
+* You know the commit hash you want to pin (the integration always pins an exact
+  commit, never a floating branch).
+


missing step - module is registered in score bazel registry

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T07:10:40Z

+* The module name follows the ``score_<name>`` convention (e.g.
+  ``score_communication``). The same name is used as the Bazel
+  ``bazel_dep`` / repository name (``@score_<name>//...``).
+* The module builds and tests pass standalone on Linux ``x86_64``.


we currently build all modules for Linux x86, QNX x86, QNX aarch64 - this is bare minimum

also showcases are additionally built with autosd and EB

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T07:16:08Z

+  ``rust_coverage_report`` target for every module that declares ``rust`` in its
+  ``langs`` (skipped for C++-only modules).
+
+Commit the regenerated files together with the ``known_good.json`` change. CI


also bazel lockfile needs to be regenerated and commited.

bazel mod deps --lockfile_mode=update

We have it only in table below as fix if fails but after adding new module this will happen in 100%.

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T07:18:00Z

+
+.. _patches:
+
+1.3 (optional) Add Bazel patches


highly preferred to not have it, especially for a new module - make a good impression ;)

Added a note, that this is more an exception as a rule

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T07:32:29Z

+  injected for this module (feature flags, config selections).
+* ``metadata.exclude_test_targets`` — test targets that must **not** run
+  (flaky, environment-specific or not meaningful out-of-tree); they are passed as
+  ``-@score_my_module<target>`` exclusions. Supports wildcards such as


they are passed as -@score_my_module... but the user needs to write just //path/to:excluded_target
Its obvious if you open known_good and look at the content but not from this intruction

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T07:35:27Z

+   by CI. This is the rung that turns a library into something that *runs* inside
+   the integration images.
+
+The integration ships four target images, each built and tested by its own


we dont ship images - someone could read it as ready to flash files are attached to the artifacts.
We just offer a way to create them on your own

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T07:37:11Z

+
+.. _add_showcase:
+
+4.1 Add a runtime showcase


renders as 4.3 4.1 - looks weird

https://eclipse-score.github.io/reference_integration/pr-266/integration_process/step_4_platforms.html#add-a-runtime-showcase

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T07:37:40Z

+
+.. _add_directly:
+
+4.2 Add a binary directly to an image


this one also 4.4 4.2

PiotrKorkus · 2026-06-18T08:00:28Z

all of these are integrated in step 3 unit tests - if everything is working in step 3, no additional actions are needed here

I wanted to separate execution of unit-tests and coverage measurement. I've added a note, hope that's ok

AlexanderLanin · 2026-06-18T21:33:31Z

   # *******************************************************************************

+###################
 Integration Process


We need some split between how to operate reference integration and the documentation generated by reference integration?! Since the docs generated by reference integration serve as documentation of a release, IMHO operational stuff should not be included there.

The docs should start with "this is the documentation for the score 0.8 reference integration/product; this is what it can do". And that should be the scope. Nothing else.

Add step-by-step integration process documentation including module addition, documentation, unit tests, platforms, component tests, integration tests, reporting, and code quality steps, plus a checklist and reference.

antonkri requested review from AlexanderLanin, FScholPer, MaximilianSoerenPollak, PiotrKorkus, dcalavrezo-qorix, lurtz, nradakovic, opajonk and pawelrutkaq as code owners June 17, 2026 13:31

antonkri added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jun 17, 2026

antonkri force-pushed the ankr_integration_process branch from 65b0ff6 to c03f9bd Compare June 17, 2026 14:20

PiotrKorkus reviewed Jun 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

AlexanderLanin reviewed Jun 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

antonkri added 2 commits June 19, 2026 08:27

WIP: Add integration process documentation

1029ee2

Add step-by-step integration process documentation including module addition, documentation, unit tests, platforms, component tests, integration tests, reporting, and code quality steps, plus a checklist and reference.

fix review findings

d34c639

antonkri force-pushed the ankr_integration_process branch from da3c5db to d34c639 Compare June 19, 2026 06:27

Conversation

antonkri commented Jun 17, 2026

Summary

Note

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

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!

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!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants