Skip to content

Improvement: futures crate usage in the Rust COM API #1263

Open

Description

@bharatGoswami8

What

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?

Activity

  1. Rutuja-Patil-Bosch commented on Oct 9, 2026

    @Rutuja-Patil-Bosch

    I'll create PR by 12th Oct 2026

  2. bharatGoswami8 commented on Oct 12, 2026

    @bharatGoswami8
    ContributorAuthor

    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.

    References
    Related discussion: #1265

    Acceptance Criteria

    • Current safety artifact coverage is documented.
    • Missing artifacts and qualification gaps are clearly identified.
    • Feasibility of achieving safety qualification with the existing crate is evaluated.
    • Recommendation and rationale are provided for the preferred path forward.
    • Findings are shared with stakeholders for architectural and safety review.
  3. Rutuja-Patil-Bosch commented on Oct 12, 2026

    @Rutuja-Patil-Bosch

    @bharatGoswami8 : I'll update evaluation as per details mentioned above.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions