Subtle fix for ament_libraries_deduplicate tests

[cottsay]

Evidently 'release' isn't a config keyword, but 'general' is. I also modified the test to assert that the keyword is actually treated like a keyword.

We just got lucky that putting 'release' in that particular spot and treating it like a library name resulted in the same behavior as if it were a build config keyword.

[sloretz]

Is this configuration list something ament invented, or does it come from somewhere else?

I see the ament_libraries_pack_build_configuration macro also looks for optimized:

ament_cmake/ament_cmake_libraries/cmake/ament_libraries_pack_build_configuration.cmake

Line 33 in e0ef5ce

if("${_lib}" MATCHES "^(debug|optimized|general)$")

. How about we add that to the test too?

[sloretz]

Bread crumb for future readers: the keywords seem to come from the target_link_libraries call: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/command/target_link_libraries.html#target-link-libraries

A debug, optimized, or general keyword indicates that the library immediately following it is to be used only for the corresponding build configuration. The debug keyword corresponds to the Debug configuration (or to configurations named in the DEBUG_CONFIGURATIONS global property if it is set). The optimized keyword corresponds to all other configurations. The general keyword corresponds to all configurations, and is purely optional (assumed if omitted). Higher granularity may be achieved for per-configuration rules by creating and linking to IMPORTED library targets.

[cottsay]

How about we add that to the test too?

I updated the last test to validate that optimized is also treated as a keyword and not a library name.

Thanks!

• Linux
• Linux-aarch64
• Windows

[VRichardJP]

The general keyword corresponds to all configurations, and is purely optional (assumed if omitted).

Since "lib" = "general:lib", should the library deduplicate process transform "lib;general;lib" into "lib" (or "general;lib"?)

I don't think it is the case at the moment

[cottsay]

Since "lib" = "general:lib", should the library deduplicate process transform "lib;general;lib" into "lib" (or "general;lib"?)

I don't think it is the case at the moment

I believe you're correct on both points. That additional deduplication could be viewed as a further optimization, separate from the additional tests and pending performance optimization.