iox-#938 check for publisher destruction in does violate communication policy

[elBoberido]

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

1. Code follows the coding style of CONTRIBUTING.md
2. Tests follow the best practice for testing
3. Changelog updated in the unreleased section including API breaking changes
4. Branch follows the naming format (iox-#123-this-is-a-branch)
5. Commits messages are according to this guideline
   • Commit messages have the issue ID (iox-#123 commit text)
   • Commit messages are signed (git commit -s)
   • Commit author matches Eclipse Contributor Agreement (and ECA is signed)
6. Update the PR title
   • Follow the same conventions as for commit messages
   • Link to the relevant issue
7. Relevant issues are linked
8. Add sensible notes for the reviewer
9. All checks have passed (except task-list-completed)
10. Assign PR to reviewer

Notes for Reviewer

This PR checks whether the publisher port which would cause a communication policy violation is marked for destruction and destroys it before asserting the error.

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

• Commits are properly organized and messages are according to the guideline
• Code according to our coding style and naming conventions
• Unit tests have been written for new behavior
  • Each unit test case has a unique UUID
• Public API changes are documented via doxygen
• Copyright owner are updated in the changed files
• PR title describes the changes

Post-review Checklist for the PR Author

1. All open points are addressed and tracked via issues

References

• Closes application can't create publisher repeatedly with previous one already destroyed #938

[mossmaurice]

Suggested change

	PortManager::doesViolateCommunicationPolicy(const capro::ServiceDescription& service IOX_MAYBE_UNUSED) noexcept
	PortManager::doesViolateCommunicationPolicy(const capro::ServiceDescription&) noexcept

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1131 (43362df) into master (0191b3c) will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1131      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.23%   77.27%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         346      346              
  Lines       13159    13159              
  Branches     1884     1884              
==========================================
+ Hits        10164    10168       +4     
+ Misses       2371     2369       -2     
+ Partials      624      622       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	76.51% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
unittests_timing	12.40% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...clude/iceoryx_posh/internal/roudi/port_manager.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...clude/iceoryx_posh/internal/roudi/port_manager.inl	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
iceoryx_posh/source/roudi/port_manager.cpp	80.72% <0.00%> (+0.30%)	⬆️
iceoryx_hoofs/source/concurrent/loffli.cpp	88.57% <0.00%> (+8.57%)	⬆️

[MatthiasKillat]

Ok, we ignore those that are about to be destroyed in the violation check (i.e. whether there already is such a port).

Now it might be possible that a port is about to be marked for destruction but not quite (i.e. m_toBeDestroyed == false) but we deny another port to be constructed. This is ok I guess, since we could argue that at this point the port still lives (and hence we cannot construct another one).

If so, the logic is fine.

[elBoberido]

@MatthiasKillat correct, we can only reason about what we know and at this point only the ones who already have the flag set are not alive animore