Remove duplicate future handling from action client send_goal_async() #1532
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
A recent change intended to move this logic into a lock context, but actually ended up duplicating it instead. This fixes that by removing the duplicated logic outside of the lock. It also preserves the explicit typing annotation on the future. Signed-off-by: Nathan Wiebe Neufeldt <[email protected]>
|
@jmblixt3 can you also take a look? |
jmblixt3
approved these changes
Oct 26, 2025
|
Will need to backported to all versions as well. |
|
@jmblixt3 thank for the review, yeah it took a really long time to put it in, sorry about that. |
|
Pulls: #1532
|
|
all green, i will go head to merge this. |
|
@Mergifyio backport kilted |
✅ Backports have been created
|
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2025
A recent change intended to move this logic into a lock context, but actually ended up duplicating it instead. This fixes that by removing the duplicated logic outside of the lock. It also preserves the explicit typing annotation on the future. Signed-off-by: Nathan Wiebe Neufeldt <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 6e22af9)
|
@fujitatomoya Thanks for merging! #1308 needed manual backports to |
|
@nwn yeah right, thanks for fixing this. |
nwn
added a commit
to nwn/rclpy
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2025
A recent change intended to move this logic into a lock context, but actually ended up duplicating it instead. This fixes that by removing the duplicated logic outside of the lock. Signed-off-by: Nathan Wiebe Neufeldt <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 6e22af9)
nwn
added a commit
to nwn/rclpy
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2025
A recent change intended to move this logic into a lock context, but actually ended up duplicating it instead. This fixes that by removing the duplicated logic outside of the lock. Signed-off-by: Nathan Wiebe Neufeldt <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 6e22af9)
This was referenced Nov 1, 2025
|
I've created manual backports of this change to Humble and Jazzy since the typing annotations here were not present in those versions. |
ahcorde
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 4, 2025
A recent change intended to move this logic into a lock context, but actually ended up duplicating it instead. This fixes that by removing the duplicated logic outside of the lock. (cherry picked from commit 6e22af9) Signed-off-by: Nathan Wiebe Neufeldt <[email protected]>
ahcorde
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 4, 2025
A recent change intended to move this logic into a lock context, but actually ended up duplicating it instead. This fixes that by removing the duplicated logic outside of the lock. (cherry picked from commit 6e22af9) Signed-off-by: Nathan Wiebe Neufeldt <[email protected]>
ahcorde
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 4, 2025
A recent change intended to move this logic into a lock context, but actually ended up duplicating it instead. This fixes that by removing the duplicated logic outside of the lock. It also preserves the explicit typing annotation on the future. (cherry picked from commit 6e22af9) Signed-off-by: Nathan Wiebe Neufeldt <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Nathan Wiebe Neufeldt <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
A recent change (#1308) intended to move some future-handling logic into a lock context, but actually ended up duplicating it instead. The result is a resource leak in the
Waitable's_futureslist since the future is added twice but only removed once. This fixes that by removing the duplicated logic outside of the lock. It also preserves the explicit typing annotation on the future.Is this user-facing behavior change?
No
Did you use Generative AI?
No
Additional Information