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

[several] Ubuntu 24.04 support + various improvements (4-3-stable) #7739

Merged
merged 27 commits into from
Jun 12, 2024

Conversation

@SwooshyCueb SwooshyCueb force-pushed the noble.4-3-stable branch 2 times, most recently from 63bca34 to 8c91990 Compare May 14, 2024 17:37
@SwooshyCueb SwooshyCueb force-pushed the noble.4-3-stable branch 2 times, most recently from e9f1f2e to 93087bd Compare May 22, 2024 18:26
@SwooshyCueb SwooshyCueb changed the title [multiple] Ubuntu 24.04 support (4-3-stable) [several] Ubuntu 24.04 support (4-3-stable) May 23, 2024
@SwooshyCueb SwooshyCueb changed the title [several] Ubuntu 24.04 support (4-3-stable) [several] Ubuntu 24.04 support + various improvements (4-3-stable) May 23, 2024
@SwooshyCueb SwooshyCueb marked this pull request as ready for review May 23, 2024 19:51
@SwooshyCueb
Copy link
Member Author

Tests are passing! This PR is ready for review.

@korydraughn
Copy link
Contributor

Will get to this after UGM.

@alanking
Copy link
Contributor

Currently leaving my review on #7733. The number of lines changed looks the same over here so I'll just assume the changes will be expected to be identical here once #7733 is merged.

@SwooshyCueb SwooshyCueb force-pushed the noble.4-3-stable branch 4 times, most recently from a0c51cf to 708ec45 Compare June 12, 2024 18:07
@korydraughn
Copy link
Contributor

Are there any differences between this PR and the one for the main branch?

@alanking
Copy link
Contributor

A quick eyeballing of the diff yields results unrelated to these changes (i.e. they are differences between main and 4-3-stable in general). Will await word from @SwooshyCueb

@SwooshyCueb
Copy link
Member Author

Are there any differences between this PR and the one for the main branch?

Nope, they are the same

Copy link
Contributor

@alanking alanking left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's # it.

- `typedef`s converted to `using`s
- type aliases added
    - `key_type`
    - `value_type`
    - `size_type`
    - `hasher`
    - `iterator_value_type`
    - `const_iterator_value_type`
- references to template type arguments in member function declarations swapped for aliases
- `operator[](key_type)` overload replaced with `operator[](const key_type&)` and `operator[](key_type&&)`
- `size()` is now `noexcept` and returns `size_type` instead of `int`
- `has_entry(key_type)` overload replaced with `has_entry(const key_type&)`
- `erase(key_type)` overload replaced with `erase(const key_type&)` that returns `size_type` instead of `size_t`
- `clear()` is now `noexcept`
- `empty()` is now `noexcept` and `nodiscard`
- `begin()` and `end()` are now `noexcept` and have `const` overloads that return a `const_iterator`
- `cbegin()` and `cend()` are now `noexcept`
- `find(key_type)` overload replaced with `find(const key_type&)` and a `const` overload that returns a `const_iterator`
- `get()` implementaiton optimized - uses `find()` instead of `has_entry()`, allowing re-use of the iterator.
- `set()` implementation now calls `insert_or_assign()` instead of the `[]` operator.

The implementation is now more similar to that of `std::unordered_map`.
Most of the signal handlers set by
`irods::set_unrecoverable_signal_handlers()` can now be disabled by setting
the environment variable `IRODS_DISABLE_CRASH_SIGNAL_HANDLERS`. This is
useful for debugging utilities that inject their own signal handlers.
…_msiServerMonPerf_default_3736`

This test is made redunant by `test_all_rules.Test_AllRules.test_rulemsiServerMonPerf_r`
@SwooshyCueb
Copy link
Member Author

#'d

@alanking alanking merged commit f57b4c5 into irods:4-3-stable Jun 12, 2024
11 of 12 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants