-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 412
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
Move ownership of shutdown_guard_condition to executors/graph_listener #1404
Merged
ivanpauno
merged 6 commits into
master
from
brawner/rclcpp-change-ownership-shutdown-gc
Nov 17, 2020
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
aece93b
Move ownership of shutdown_guard_condition to executors/graph_listener
brawner fb8774b
Keep shared ownership of rcl_context_t instead of rclcpp::Context in …
ivanpauno 2297071
Fix bugs, cleanup style
ivanpauno 6e8e157
Update graph_listener tests and please linters
ivanpauno 564993c
Use rclcpp::GuardCondition in executor
ivanpauno 88ed73e
Minimize vertical spacing
ivanpauno File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This line isn't hit anymore.
The reason is that now we're creating two guard conditions, instead of one, and we're hitting the error in the first creation and not here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@brawner Any suggestion to cover this line without adding a mock that fails in the second call to
rcl_guard_condition_init
?I can apply the mentioned option, but IMO that's a bit "strange".
Maybe fault injection works for this, I will try to give it a try.
P.S.: I don't think that hitting this line matters, as overall coverage has improved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, that's my opinion too. If overall coverage is improving, then its OK to lose a line like this. If it becomes important, we can always revisit it later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The fault injection tools were intended for situations like this, but I think it's fine without.