ara::per::OpenKeyValueStorage(
ara::core::InstanceSpecifier{"OdoApp/OdometerKVS"})
.then([](auto kvsResult) {
auto& kvs = kvsResult.Value();
// Restore previous value on startup
auto odo = kvs.GetValue<uint64_t>("odometer_km").ValueOr(0);
ara::log::LogInfo() << "Restored odometer: " << odo << " km";
// Increment on each km pulse from wheel speed
wheelSpeedProxy.KmPulse.SetReceiveHandler([&] {
wheelSpeedProxy.KmPulse.GetNewSamples([&](auto) {
++odo;
kvs.SetValue("odometer_km", odo);
kvs.SyncToStorage(); // flush immediately for safety
}, 1);
});
wheelSpeedProxy.KmPulse.Subscribe(1);
});
KVS: Persisting an Odometer Counter
Recovery Test
# Simulate KVS corruption for testing
# (on development target — never in production!)
dd if=/dev/urandom of=/var/per/OdometerKVS/odometer_km.bin bs=1 count=8
# Restart OdoApp — expect RecoveryHandler callback
journalctl -f -t OdoApp
# Expected: "KVS corrupt: reset to defaults"
# Expected: odometer starts from 0 (default value from manifest)
⚠️ Test Isolation
KVS corruption tests must be performed on isolated development targets only. On production ECUs, the flash write behind the KVS file is protected by the OS file permissions and only accessible to the ara::per daemon.
UCM Integration: Package Updated App
# Build updated OdoApp binary
cmake --build build/OdoApp -- -j8
# Package as Software Package
autosar-packager \
--manifest manifests/OdoApp_v2/ \
--binary build/OdoApp/bin/OdoApp \
--output OdoApp_v2.0.0.swcl \
--sign keys/oem_private_key.pem
# Transfer to UCM via OTA client
./ota_client --package OdoApp_v2.0.0.swcl --ucm 192.168.0.1:50100
Upgrade and Rollback Verification
// After UCM.Activate():
// 1. Verify new binary version
assert(GetSWVersion() == "2.0.0");
// 2. Verify KVS persisted data survives OTA
auto odo = kvs.GetValue<uint64_t>("odometer_km").Value();
assert(odo == pre_update_odometer); // KVS must survive OTA
// 3. Trigger rollback
ucmProxy.Rollback().get();
// 4. Verify rollback restored previous binary
assert(GetSWVersion() == "1.0.0");
// 5. Verify KVS still intact after rollback
odo = kvs.GetValue<uint64_t>("odometer_km").Value();
assert(odo == pre_update_odometer); // data must be unchanged
Summary
This hands-on session validates the full persistence lifecycle: boot-time restore, runtime write, power-cycle survival, corruption recovery, and OTA upgrade/rollback. All four paths must be tested before production deployment of any Adaptive application that uses ara::per.
🔬 Deep Dive — Core Concepts Expanded
This section builds on the foundational concepts covered above with additional technical depth, edge cases, and configuration nuances that separate competent engineers from experts. When working on production ECU projects, the details covered here are the ones most commonly responsible for integration delays and late-phase defects.
Key principles to reinforce:
- Configuration over coding: In AUTOSAR and automotive middleware environments, correctness is largely determined by ARXML configuration, not application code. A correctly implemented algorithm can produce wrong results due to a single misconfigured parameter.
- Traceability as a first-class concern: Every configuration decision should be traceable to a requirement, safety goal, or architecture decision. Undocumented configuration choices are a common source of regression defects when ECUs are updated.
- Cross-module dependencies: In tightly integrated automotive software stacks, changing one module's configuration often requires corresponding updates in dependent modules. Always perform a dependency impact analysis before submitting configuration changes.
🏭 How This Topic Appears in Production Projects
- Project integration phase: The concepts covered in this lesson are most commonly encountered during ECU integration testing — when multiple software components from different teams are combined for the first time. Issues that were invisible in unit tests frequently surface at this stage.
- Supplier/OEM interface: This is a topic that frequently appears in technical discussions between Tier-1 ECU suppliers and OEM system integrators. Engineers who can speak fluently about these details earn credibility and are often brought into critical design review meetings.
- Automotive tool ecosystem: Vector CANoe/CANalyzer, dSPACE tools, and ETAS INCA are the standard tools used to validate and measure the correct behaviour of the systems described in this lesson. Familiarity with these tools alongside the conceptual knowledge dramatically accelerates debugging in real projects.
⚠️ Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
- Assuming default configuration is correct: Automotive software tools ship with default configurations that are designed to compile and link, not to meet project-specific requirements. Every configuration parameter needs to be consciously set. 'It compiled' is not the same as 'it is correctly configured'.
- Skipping documentation of configuration rationale: In a 3-year ECU project with team turnover, undocumented configuration choices become tribal knowledge that disappears when engineers leave. Document why a parameter is set to a specific value, not just what it is set to.
- Testing only the happy path: Automotive ECUs must behave correctly under fault conditions, voltage variations, and communication errors. Always test the error handling paths as rigorously as the nominal operation. Many production escapes originate in untested error branches.
- Version mismatches between teams: In a multi-team project, the BSW team, SWC team, and system integration team may use different versions of the same ARXML file. Version management of all ARXML files in a shared repository is mandatory, not optional.
📊 Industry Note
Engineers who master both the theoretical concepts and the practical toolchain skills covered in this course are among the most sought-after professionals in the automotive software industry. The combination of AUTOSAR standards knowledge, safety engineering understanding, and hands-on configuration experience commands premium salaries at OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers globally.