iox-#536 refactored creation/getter method names in units::Duration

[enkeyz]

Signed-off-by: enkeyz klarnorbert@gmail.com

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

1. Branch follows the naming format (iox-#123-this-is-a-branch)
2. 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)
3. Update the PR title
   • Follow the same conventions as for commit messages
   • Link to the relevant issue
4. Relevant issues are linked
5. Add sensible notes for the reviewer
6. All checks have passed
7. Assign PR to reviewer

Notes for Reviewer

Refactored creation/getter method names to be more meaningful for "units::Duration". Partly closes: #536

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
• 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

Post-review Checklist for the Eclipse Committer

1. All checkboxes in the PR checklist are checked or crossed out
2. Merge

References

• Closes TBD

[dkroenke]

@enkeyz There is one requirement from the eclipse organization to sign the Eclipse Contributor Agreement, this can be done in your eclipse account.

[enkeyz]

@enkeyz There is one requirement from the eclipse organization to sign the Eclipse Contributor Agreement, this can be done in your eclipse account.

Just updated. Should be okey.

[dkroenke]

@enkeyz there is a merge conflict and the CI doesn't start then. Can you merge the latest master in your branch?

[enkeyz]

@enkeyz there is a merge conflict and the CI doesn't start then. Can you merge the latest master in your branch?

Done.

[mossmaurice]

Thanks for you contribution! The codes changes look great. However, I've noticed two workflow-related points:

1. Last two commits are missing "iox-Improving units::Duration #536" tag, this is needed for traceability. Could you rebase and force push?
2. Could you link the issue Improving units::Duration #536 at the very end of your pull request description e.g. with a "Partly closes Improving units::Duration #536"?

[enkeyz]

Thanks for you contribution! The codes changes look great. However, I've noticed two workflow-related points:

1. Last two commits are missing "iox-Improving units::Duration #536" tag, this is needed for traceability. Could you rebase and force push?
2. Could you link the issue Improving units::Duration #536 at the very end of your pull request description e.g. with a "Partly closes Improving units::Duration #536"?

Fixed.

[elBoberido]

Could you clean up the duration usage in c_wait_set.cpp from my last comment. It seems it can be simplified even more.
After that this could be merged from my point of view.

[elBoberido]

btw. thanks for your patience and contribution. It's highly appreciated :)

[mossmaurice]

Thanks! LGTM

[enkeyz]

Thanks for the opportunity! :)