-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 383
Added missing Debug Level testing for "Send Reply Current is 0" #2373
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes include an update to the Changes
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
✨ Finishing Touches
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
It may be, see similar statement earlier in this function. If the developer thought this was a very serious warning it could be logged at all levels (users still have control over the logger objects and if/where they output). In this case I'm not sure what the correct behavior is. |
Thanks @mitza-oci for looking into it. Maybe @jwillemsen will have an opinion? If the warning is serious, I would have expected the macro to be used to be |
If If you have an application that exhibits this behavior it would probably be good to find out why receive_request isn't working, or if there's some other bug. If you can add a test to TAO that would be ideal. |
Ho dear ho dear. I'll look deeper. I saw this patch in our application code, and I wasn't 100% sure, but it smells like the wrong fix for our real problem. |
Something is weird though. If you stay in the context of current = static_cast<TAO_RTScheduler_Current_i *> (tss->rtscheduler_current_impl_);
// Then under condition:
if (current != 0)
{
.. some logic ..
// build new_current and..
tss->rtscheduler_current_impl_ = new_current;
} So unless |
See the last statement of tss->rtscheduler_previous_current_impl_ = this->current_->implementation (new_current); The call to |
Thanks @mitza-oci ! Do you know if there's a reason why this wouldn't happen in some application code that integrate the ORB? |
No, I suggest debugging it to see if that function is exiting early or throwing. |
Does what it says in the title.
I'm also wondering if it is intentional that this
TAOLIB_DEBUG
statement is not under a debug condition?NB: Also ignore .devcontainer
Summary by CodeRabbit
Chores
.devcontainer
directory or file in version control.Bug Fixes