Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[20706] Make reader get_first_untaken_info() coherent with read()/take() (backport #4696) #4708

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 23, 2024

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Apr 19, 2024

Description

This PR corrects the behavior of get_first_untaken_info() so that it retrieves the first valid cache change (checking whether the change is in the future or not), instead of just returning the first one in the instance (sorted by sourcetimestamp).
In the scenario of having multiple reliable writers and one reader with history size > 1 in the same topic, it can happen that get_first_untaken_info() returns OK (as it is not currently checking whether the change is in the future) but take() returns NO_DATA because the change is in the future.

In addition, a brief doxygen documentation is added to be aware that the method is meant to be followed by a read() or take() since it does not modify the status condition of the entity.

@Mergifyio backport 2.13.x 2.10.x 2.6.x

Fixes ros2/rmw_fastrtps#749

Contributor Checklist

  • Commit messages follow the project guidelines.

  • The code follows the style guidelines of this project.

  • Tests that thoroughly check the new feature have been added/Regression tests checking the bug and its fix have been added; the added tests pass locally

  • Any new/modified methods have been properly documented using Doxygen.

  • Any new configuration API has an equivalent XML API (with the corresponding XSD extension)

  • Changes are ABI compatible.

  • Changes are API compatible.

  • N/A New feature has been added to the versions.md file (if applicable).

  • N/A New feature has been documented/Current behavior is correctly described in the documentation.

  • Applicable backports have been included in the description.

Reviewer Checklist

  • The PR has a milestone assigned.
  • The title and description correctly express the PR's purpose.
  • Check contributor checklist is correct.
  • Check CI results: changes do not issue any warning.
  • Check CI results: failing tests are unrelated with the changes.

This is an automatic backport of pull request #4696 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

* Refs #20706: Add regression BB test

Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <mariodominguez@eprosima.com>

* Refs #20706: Fix

Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <mariodominguez@eprosima.com>

* Refs #20706: Apply review suggestions

Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <mariodominguez@eprosima.com>

---------

Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <mariodominguez@eprosima.com>
(cherry picked from commit 5fbd88e)
Copy link
Contributor

@fujitatomoya fujitatomoya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

as feedback, we originally found this problem with humble, and then confirmed with rolling as well. we have confirmed that this PR resolves the problem with humble as well based on 2.6.x branch.

@MiguelCompany
Copy link
Member

@richiprosima please test this

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany self-requested a review April 19, 2024 20:09
@github-actions github-actions bot added the ci-pending PR which CI is running label Apr 19, 2024
@MiguelCompany
Copy link
Member

The new test failed here. Could you take a look @Mario-DL ?

Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <mariodominguez@eprosima.com>
@Mario-DL
Copy link
Member

@richiprosima please test this

@Mario-DL Mario-DL requested review from MiguelCompany and removed request for MiguelCompany April 22, 2024 16:15
@Mario-DL
Copy link
Member

Despite the patch fixes the issue it is weird that HelloWorld type declaration has a std::string instead of a fixed string as the idl states. Will double check that.

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany merged commit 6582ec5 into 2.6.x Apr 23, 2024
12 of 17 checks passed
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany deleted the mergify/bp/2.6.x/pr-4696 branch April 23, 2024 05:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ci-pending PR which CI is running
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants