feat: Basic support for channels #2859
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2859 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 81.86% 81.91% +0.04%
===========================================
Files 381 382 +1
Lines 14417 14472 +55
Branches 7935 7951 +16
===========================================
+ Hits 11803 11855 +52
Misses 1446 1446
- Partials 1168 1171 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
mathbunnyru
left a comment
mathbunnyru
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't read test file yet, will review a bit later
| result = std::forward<decltype(value)>(value); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| if (received) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible for some reason to have error in ec, but received True?
And why is there 2 ways to communicate the error?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not too sure we actually need the ec at all as we don't actually use it when we send. when we receive i imagine there should be an internal ec somewhere. I will check if we can get rid of it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, i could not remove error_code from the channel signature. I expected that would be easy but looks like you need that error_code in the signature
|
|
||
| if (params_.approachType == ApproachType::Spawn) { | ||
| util::spawn(executor, [&receiver, &receivedValues](boost::asio::yield_context yield) mutable { | ||
| while (receivedValues.size() < kTOTAL_EXPECTED) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we should check that we have exactly kTOTAL_EXPECTED values?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We check it below already, is that not what you meant?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, my wording is bad.
Right now you're pushing to vector only if while (receivedValues.size() < kTOTAL_EXPECTED), so it's impossible you're going to have more than kTOTAL_EXPECTED values pushed to vector
This doesn't check that receiver is not able to receive a few more values though.
Imagine, there is a bug, and we do not account for some values in queue when receiving.
I suggest after this while to write tryReceive and check it fails
2 participants
This PR implements go-like channels wrapper (on top of asio experimental channels).
In the future this will be integrated into the AsyncFramework.