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

[21596] Unions with Boolean or Enumeration discriminator might not be initialized correctly #393

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 10, 2024

Conversation

richiware
Copy link
Member

@richiware richiware commented Sep 6, 2024

Description

For unions with boolean or enumeration discriminator if all cases are covered, the default discriminator value is set correctly to true or to first enumeration literal but the C++ constructor not initialize that member.

Fix was done in eProsima/IDL-Parser#156. This PR only updates the submodule.

Depends on:

Contributor Checklist

  • Commit messages follow the project guidelines.
  • N/A 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
  • N/A New feature has been documented/Current behavior is correctly described in the documentation.
  • N/A 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.

@richiware richiware changed the title Unions with Boolean or Enumeration discriminator might not be initialized correctly [21596] Unions with Boolean or Enumeration discriminator might not be initialized correctly Sep 6, 2024
@rsanchez15 rsanchez15 added this to the v4.0.1 milestone Sep 6, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the ci-pending PR which CI is running label Sep 6, 2024
MiguelCompany
MiguelCompany previously approved these changes Sep 6, 2024
Copy link
Member

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM with green CI

@richiware richiware added ready-to-merge Ready to be merged. CI and changes have been reviewed and approved. and removed ci-pending PR which CI is running labels Sep 9, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the ci-pending PR which CI is running label Sep 9, 2024
Signed-off-by: Ricardo González Moreno <[email protected]>
@richiware richiware requested review from MiguelCompany and removed request for MiguelCompany September 10, 2024 05:12
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany removed the ready-to-merge Ready to be merged. CI and changes have been reviewed and approved. label Sep 10, 2024
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany added ready-to-merge Ready to be merged. CI and changes have been reviewed and approved. and removed ci-pending PR which CI is running labels Sep 10, 2024
@richiware richiware merged commit b4b4081 into master Sep 10, 2024
4 checks passed
@richiware richiware deleted the bugfix/21594 branch September 10, 2024 07:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready-to-merge Ready to be merged. CI and changes have been reviewed and approved.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants