Document rmw_destroy_node may assume correct destruction order #216
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
Signed-off-by: Shane Loretz <[email protected]>
Contributor
Author
|
CI (test just
|
wjwwood
approved these changes
Apr 21, 2020
delete-merged-branch
bot
deleted the
sloretz/document_rmw_destroy_node_will_come_last
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I looked at three rmw implementations,
rmw_fastrtps_shared_cpp,rmw_connect_shared_cpp, andrmw_cyclone_cpp, and it seems like they all assume higher layers destroy entities created from nodes before the node itself is destroyed. This PR documents that rmw implementations may assume this.This also adds an option for
rmwimplementations to choose to check that assumption and refuse to destroy the node if not all entities created from it have been destroyed. Normwimplementation does this, but I think it would be nice if one did to make it easier to catch destruction order bugs.Context: ros2/rcl#585
Another PR in
rcldocumenting that the destruction order responsibility belongs to the client libraries: ros2/rcl#625