fix(lifecycle_client): link lifecycle_mock against lifecyclemanager t…

[Chahult]

…o resolve vtable

lifecycle_mock provides a mock implementation of LifeCycleManager, which inherits from the concrete class defined in lifecyclemanager.cpp. Without linking against the :lifecyclemanager target, the vtable symbol is undefined when building lifecycle_mock as a shared library (--no-allow-shlib-undefined).

Added :lifecyclemanager to lifecycle_mock's deps to provide the vtable.

[github-actions]

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: a5f6ac73-6cb5-45d3-ab26-b292f5a5e91f
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (33 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (85 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (142 packages loaded, 2141 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (152 packages loaded, 2794 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (153 packages loaded, 6231 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 8271 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 8271 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 8271 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 8271 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (168 packages loaded, 10283 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 10409 targets configured).
[4 / 14] checking cached actions
[12 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileClasses external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath_classes; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox ... (2 actions running)
[14 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 24.230s, Critical Path: 2.62s
INFO: 16 processes: 12 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 16 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

[anmittag]

@Chahult some checks are failing,are you planning to adapt or delete the PR?

[github-actions]

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

[Chahult]

@NicolasFussberger Could you please review

[Chahult]

@Chahult some checks are failing,are you planning to adapt or delete the PR?

Adapt the changes for config management
Please assign this to me and also add Nicolas Fußberger as a reviewer

[NicolasFussberger]

@Chahult In the lifecycle repo we have a bit the problem that these mocks were contributed but we have no tests for them at the moment and its also not really obvious how to use them.
This is why currently, there is a high chance we accidentally break them.

Would it be possible for you to contribute some tests based on your usage of these mocks? E.g. for some example application we have in the examples folder?

[Chahult]

@Chahult In the lifecycle repo we have a bit the problem that these mocks were contributed but we have no tests for them at the moment and its also not really obvious how to use them. This is why currently, there is a high chance we accidentally break them.

Would it be possible for you to contribute some tests based on your usage of these mocks? E.g. for some example application we have in the examples folder?

Sure, Done — added examples/cpp_lifecycle_app/lifecycle_mocks_UT.cpp with tests that mirror how config_management uses the mocks (argument injection via ApplicationContextMock, lifecycle flow via LifeCycleManagerMock). These also serve as usage documentation for future contributors.

[NicolasFussberger]

Is it really correct to add the lifecylemanager here?
Now this target contains both, the lifecyclemanagermock.cpp and the actual lifecyclemanager implementation

[Chahult]

Yes, it's intentional. LifeCycleManagerMock inherits from the concrete LifeCycleManager class. Without :lifecyclemanager in its deps, the vtable symbols for the base class are undefined when building lifecycle_mock as a shared library under --no-allow-shlib-undefined.
Adding :lifecyclemanager provides the vtable — this is the minimum fix to make the linker happy. The mock .cpp itself remains unchanged; it just needs the base class compiled in.

[NicolasFussberger]

I think applicationcontext mock is already part of //score/launch_manager/src/lifecycle_client:lifecycle_mock

[Chahult]

You're right , lifecycle_mock already depends on :applicationcontext_mock transitively. Removed the explicit dep from lifecycle_mock_cc