You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Improvement: futures crate usage in the Rust COM API #1263
The Rust COM API uses futures for asynchronous stream and notification support. The public Subscription::to_stream() API returns a futures::Stream; the LoLa runtime uses futures::task::AtomicWaker to notify pending receives when samples arrive. The mock runtime also uses stream helpers and an executor in its support code.
This is used in API/runtime behavior, unlike a build-only procedural macro dependency. The COM API does not require application users to adopt a particular executor.
Acceptance criteria
Record the pinned crate version, enabled features, and direct COM API call sites.
Distinguish production runtime use from mock/test-only use.
Review crate provenance, license, maintenance status, and safety relevance.
Document whether to retain futures, reduce its use, or replace specific functionality, and record the required qualification artifacts.
How
No response
Estimates for realization
No response
Category
Affects Detailed Design
Requirements / Architecture
Requirements / Architecture are not affected by this change?
As part of the evaluation of the future rust crate, we need to understand the extent to which the current implementation supports the generation and maintenance of safety-related artifacts.
The assessment should focus on identifying what artifacts are already available and what additional effort would be required to meet future safety and qualification requirements.
Scope
Review the existing Rust crate and assess support for the following artifacts (non-exhaustive):
Architecture and design documentation
Requirements traceability
Unit test reports
Code coverage reports
Static analysis results
Qualification evidence
Safety case documentation
CI/CD generated compliance artifacts
Other work products required for safety qualification
Expected Outcome
Document the safety-related artifacts currently supported by the crate.
Identify gaps between the current state and expected future safety requirements.
Estimate the effort required to close identified gaps.
Assess whether the existing crate can be evolved to meet future qualification and safety compliance needs.
Provide recommendations on:
Continuing with the existing crate and enhancing artifact support, or
Creating/forking a dedicated SCORE crate if qualification requirements cannot be met efficiently.
Activity
Rutuja-Patil-Bosch commentedon Oct 9, 2026
I'll create PR by 12th Oct 2026
bharatGoswami8 commentedon Oct 12, 2026
As part of the evaluation of the future rust crate, we need to understand the extent to which the current implementation supports the generation and maintenance of safety-related artifacts.
The assessment should focus on identifying what artifacts are already available and what additional effort would be required to meet future safety and qualification requirements.
Scope
Review the existing Rust crate and assess support for the following artifacts (non-exhaustive):
Expected Outcome
References
Related discussion: #1265
Acceptance Criteria
Rutuja-Patil-Bosch commentedon Oct 12, 2026
@bharatGoswami8 : I'll update evaluation as per details mentioned above.