Not all configuration table parameters are validated

[semaldona]

Per requirement CF7001.1.1, the following values must be validated in the configuration table:
a. Outgoing File Chunk Size
b. Flight and Ground Entity Ids
c. Message IDs
d. CFDP Class 1 or 2

Currently, CF only validates item a. Outgoing File Chunk Size

[skliper]

There's been some updates (see below), but the table contents need to be reviewed to see if the requirement is currently being met. Leaving as a requirements issue for now since no elements have been explicitly identified as missing validation.

Requirement was updated to read "... all parameters":
https://github.com/nasa/CF/blob/main/docs/cf_FunctionalRequirements.csv#L94

Currently checks:
ticks_per_second is non-zero
rx_crc_calc_bytes_per_wakeup is nonzero and aligned with 1024
outgoing_file_chunk_size fits in a PDU

Contents are defined in https://github.com/nasa/CF/blob/main/fsw/src/cf_tbldefs.h.

Validation code is here:

CF/fsw/src/cf_app.c

Lines 118 to 149 in 893aa30

	int32 CF_ValidateConfigTable(void *tbl_ptr)
	{
	CF_ConfigTable_t * tbl = (CF_ConfigTable_t *)tbl_ptr;
	int32 ret; /* initialized below */
	static const int32 no_ticks_per_second = -1;
	static const int32 crc_alignment = -2;
	static const int32 outgoing_chunk_size = -3;
	if (!tbl->ticks_per_second)
	{
	CFE_EVS_SendEvent(CF_EID_ERR_INIT_TPS, CFE_EVS_EventType_ERROR, "CF: config table has zero ticks per second");
	ret = no_ticks_per_second;
	}
	else if (!tbl->rx_crc_calc_bytes_per_wakeup || (tbl->rx_crc_calc_bytes_per_wakeup & 0x3ff))
	{
	CFE_EVS_SendEvent(CF_EID_ERR_INIT_CRC_ALIGN, CFE_EVS_EventType_ERROR,
	"CF: config table has rx crc size not aligned with 1024");
	ret = crc_alignment; /* must be 1024-byte aligned */
	}
	else if (tbl->outgoing_file_chunk_size > sizeof(CF_CFDP_PduFileDataContent_t))
	{
	CFE_EVS_SendEvent(CF_EID_ERR_INIT_OUTGOING_SIZE, CFE_EVS_EventType_ERROR,
	"CF: config table has outgoing file chunk size too large");
	ret = outgoing_chunk_size; /* must be smaller than file data character array */
	}
	else
	{
	ret = CFE_SUCCESS;
	}
	return ret;
	}

[skliper]

Note validating "all parameters" doesn't really make sense for elements that are basically valid for their entire range or similar. I'd find it easier to read if it just said "...shall validate the configuration table", and the implementation can validate whatever elements are appropriate per a code review (and tested specifically via unit test and generally via functional test).