Skip to content

[ntuple] Correct RValue::GetRef<T> usage or use RValue::GetPtr<void> #19339

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

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 15, 2025

Conversation

hahnjo
Copy link
Member

@hahnjo hahnjo commented Jul 11, 2025

See the individual commits for the case-by-case changes and explanations.

@hahnjo hahnjo requested review from jblomer, silverweed and enirolf July 11, 2025 09:04
@hahnjo hahnjo self-assigned this Jul 11, 2025
hahnjo added 5 commits July 11, 2025 11:25
It was calling the typed RValue::GetRef<std::uint64_t>() which is
incorrect because the value actually has type RNTupleCardinality.
This worked a bit by chance because the class only has a single
member of the right type. Instead of correcting the typed API, which
might cause additional checks in the future, use GetPtr<void> and
then cast to RNTupleCardinality<std::uint64_t>.
See also the previous commit message for an explanation.
... instead of passing punned types to the templated API.
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 11, 2025

Test Results

    20 files      20 suites   3d 7h 24m 47s ⏱️
 3 198 tests  3 198 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
62 306 runs  62 306 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 9a8ba50.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link
Contributor

@silverweed silverweed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@hahnjo hahnjo merged commit aff8cef into root-project:master Jul 15, 2025
65 of 67 checks passed
@hahnjo hahnjo deleted the ntuple-RValue-typed branch July 15, 2025 06:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants