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

[20706] Make reader get_first_untaken_info() coherent with read()/take() (backport #4696) #4707

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 19, 2024

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Apr 19, 2024

Description

This PR corrects the behavior of get_first_untaken_info() so that it retrieves the first valid cache change (checking whether the change is in the future or not), instead of just returning the first one in the instance (sorted by sourcetimestamp).
In the scenario of having multiple reliable writers and one reader with history size > 1 in the same topic, it can happen that get_first_untaken_info() returns OK (as it is not currently checking whether the change is in the future) but take() returns NO_DATA because the change is in the future.

In addition, a brief doxygen documentation is added to be aware that the method is meant to be followed by a read() or take() since it does not modify the status condition of the entity.

@Mergifyio backport 2.13.x 2.10.x 2.6.x

Fixes ros2/rmw_fastrtps#749

Contributor Checklist

  • Commit messages follow the project guidelines.

  • The code follows the style guidelines of this project.

  • Tests that thoroughly check the new feature have been added/Regression tests checking the bug and its fix have been added; the added tests pass locally

  • Any new/modified methods have been properly documented using Doxygen.

  • Any new configuration API has an equivalent XML API (with the corresponding XSD extension)

  • Changes are ABI compatible.

  • Changes are API compatible.

  • N/A New feature has been added to the versions.md file (if applicable).

  • N/A New feature has been documented/Current behavior is correctly described in the documentation.

  • Applicable backports have been included in the description.

Reviewer Checklist

  • The PR has a milestone assigned.
  • The title and description correctly express the PR's purpose.
  • Check contributor checklist is correct.
  • Check CI results: changes do not issue any warning.
  • Check CI results: failing tests are unrelated with the changes.

This is an automatic backport of pull request #4696 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

* Refs #20706: Add regression BB test

Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <mariodominguez@eprosima.com>

* Refs #20706: Fix

Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <mariodominguez@eprosima.com>

* Refs #20706: Apply review suggestions

Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <mariodominguez@eprosima.com>

---------

Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <mariodominguez@eprosima.com>
(cherry picked from commit 5fbd88e)
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany added this to the v2.10.4 milestone Apr 19, 2024
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany self-requested a review April 19, 2024 11:52
@github-actions github-actions bot added the ci-pending PR which CI is running label Apr 19, 2024
@MiguelCompany
Copy link
Member

@richiprosima please test this

@MiguelCompany
Copy link
Member

Failures seem unrelated to me. Going in

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany merged commit bf86ff2 into 2.10.x Apr 19, 2024
11 of 17 checks passed
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany deleted the mergify/bp/2.10.x/pr-4696 branch April 19, 2024 20:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ci-pending PR which CI is running
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants