[Moims-sc] RE: M&C Check service: protection in Compound checks

[Sam Cooper]

Hi Brigitte, sorry for the delay in responding. Happy new year to you too! J

 

1)

There is still a CheckLink created for the compound check so the conditional part is in that. I should clarify that.

 

2)

Ok.

 

3)

Yes, we need to ensure the full behaviour of the compound check is captured in the actual requirements.

 

4)

How can the protected status be protected if the check is disabled?

 

5)

This is why there is the proposal to check the name of the operation. You still need a check link for a compound check as that is where the enabled/disabled flag and the conditional check are. The fact that it may have an associated parameter (for all other check types) is now check type dependent. So we need that functionality its just that the name "addParameterCheck" is now misleading and it should be something like "addCheckInstance" or maybe something less programmer.

 

6)

Yes, we can change this to work like that. Would also need to change getServiceStatus too.

 

 

Best regards,

Sam.

 

 

 

From: Behal Brigitte [mailto:Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr] 
Sent: 06 January 2015 22:16
To: Sam Cooper
Cc: moims-sc at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: RE: M&C Check service: protection in Compound checks

 

Hello Sam,

I wish you a happy New Year. May it be fulfilled with Peace and a lot of Happiness.

I have gone through your proposal and I have a few comments :

 

·         In the new PUS version the functional monitoring subservice can support conditional checking => should we not add a field "condition" to the new compoundCheckDefinition ?

 

·         To report the protection status of the compound check, why not add the field "protectChecklinks" to the checkSummary data structure ? It could then be reported by the getSummaryReport operation as it is done for the enable / disable status of the checklinks.

 

·         The status of a functional monitoring is set to "running" when the number of referenced checks that are simultaneously in violation is less than "minimumChecksinViolation"

 

·         When a new functional monitoring is created, PUS C indicates that the check state of the functional monitoring definition is set to "unchecked", the functional monitoring definition is disabled and, if the service supports this capability, the protection status is protected.

 

Furthermore, I do not understand how you can use the addparameterCheck operation to add a checklink to a compoundCheck. The objectDetails structure provided in input of the operation is supposed to contain the checkDefinition object InstId and the parameterDefinition object InstId and the output is supposed to be the InstId of the newly created checklink object.

In the case of a compound check,  how would that work ?  

 

A last point that is not addressed by the modification that you propose :  in PUS C, the monitoring service is composed of 2 sub-services, the parameter monitoring sub-service and the functional monitoring sub-service. These 2 sub-services can be enabled / disabled independently of one another. 

The operation enableService does not exactly perform the same function, because it enables / disables completely the check service.  

Would it be possible to add an extra parameter to this operation in order to obtain the same behavior as PUS C ? In this case, the getServiceStatus should also be modified.

 

 

Best regards

 

 

B. Behal

Sous-Directrice Produits et Segments Sol (DCT/PS)

Tel: 73396 
Bpi: 1321 

 

De : moims-sc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:moims-sc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Sam Cooper
Envoyé : jeudi 18 décembre 2014 13:54
À : moims-sc at mailman.ccsds.org
Objet : [Moims-sc] M&C Check service: protection in Compound checks

 

Dear All,

 

Please find attached a short technical note describing the changes proposed to add in protection to Compound Checks. This is in response to my action (141111-02) from the London workshop.

 

Please send any comments by the end of Friday the 9th of January. 

 

Best regards,

Sam.

 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________


Sam Cooper

Systems Architect - Space Division

SCISYS UK Limited

T: +44 (0)117 916 5127 | F: +44 (0)117 916 5299

E: sam.cooper at scisys.co.uk <mailto:sam.cooper at scisys.co.uk>  | www.scisys.co.uk <http://www.scisys.co.uk> 

 

 

SCISYS UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 4373530.

Registered Office: Methuen Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN14 0GB, UK.

 

Before printing, please think about the environment.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-sc/attachments/20150115/78675e2d/attachment.html>