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

Fix #982, separate pipeinfo file data structure #1102

Merged

Conversation

jphickey
Copy link
Contributor

@jphickey jphickey commented Jan 15, 2021

Describe the contribution
Provide a separate/dedicated structure for use in the "Pipe Info" file as written by the CFE_SB_SEND_PIPE_INFO_CC command, instead of using the CFE_SB_PipeD_t which is supposed to be internal/private.

Data is extracted from the internal CFE_SB_PipeD_t while shared data locked and staged into this new format, then the shared data is unlocked while the other information is gathered and finally written to the file.

Fixes #982
Fixes #995

Testing performed
Build CFE and sanity check, run all unit tests
Run the CFE_SB_SEND_PIPE_INFO_CC and confirm that the file is generated.

Expected behavior changes
This changes the binary format of the generated pipe info file. However after this is merged the format of the fine should be more stable going forward, as internal changes to the CFE_SB_PipeD_t will no longer affect it.

System(s) tested on
Ubuntu 20.04

Additional context
This still needs a rebase as it depends on #1092.

Contributor Info - All information REQUIRED for consideration of pull request
Joseph Hickey, Vantage Systems, Inc.

Define a data structure in cfe_sb_msg.h that will be used
with the "write pipe info" command (CFE_SB_SEND_PIPE_INFO_CC).

This allows the internal CFE_SB_PipeD_t descriptor object to
evolve as needed without affecting the binary format of the
file that is generated form this command, and items such
as memory pointers may be excluded from the file.
@jphickey jphickey marked this pull request as draft January 15, 2021 22:06
@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor

CCB:2021-01-21 APPROVED

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor

skliper commented Jan 26, 2021

@astrogeco - This has been approved... does it need a tag update and merge?

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor

@astrogeco - This has been approved... does it need a tag update and merge?

I think this was probably a last-minute CCB addition since the "ready" label is missing; I missed it. Thanks for catching it!

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor

@astrogeco - This has been approved... does it need a tag update and merge?

I think this was probably a last-minute CCB addition since the "ready" label is missing; I missed it. Thanks for catching it!

I did notice it's still in draft mode @jphickey did you mean to change anything here?

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor

skliper commented Jan 26, 2021

I think it's only as draft since it depends on merges that are still in IC... if you update target to IC they should go away.

@astrogeco astrogeco marked this pull request as ready for review January 26, 2021 15:00
@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor

I think it's only as draft since it depends on merges that are still in IC... if you update target to IC they should go away.

I just clicked the button :)

@astrogeco astrogeco changed the base branch from main to integration-candidate January 26, 2021 15:01
@astrogeco astrogeco merged commit 7d0845c into nasa:integration-candidate Jan 26, 2021
astrogeco added a commit to nasa/cFS that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2021
@jphickey
Copy link
Contributor Author

I still needed to rebase this.... it looks like I'm too late though

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor

I still needed to rebase this.... it looks like I'm too late though

sorry!! Feel free to push to the cFE IC branch if there's anything we need to fix...

@jphickey
Copy link
Contributor Author

Problem is it picked up an extra commit (0f4ed8f) which was a temporary merge I had locally done of the prerequisites. My normal process is to rebase to "main" once those prerequisites are merged.

Should I force-push to integration-candidate to remove this extra commit in the history - or do you want to just leave it forever?

jphickey pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2021
Fix #982, separate pipeinfo file data structure
@jphickey
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased and fixed merge in integration-candidate - all good now.

astrogeco added a commit to nasa/cFS that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2021
@skliper skliper added this to the 7.0.0 milestone Sep 24, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants