Support jump handlers with only pre- or post-jump callback#517
Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
sloretz
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2018
nnmm
pushed a commit
to ApexAI/rclcpp
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2022
Include rcl_context_t in the example usage. Signed-off-by: Jacob Perron <jacob@openrobotics.org>
DensoADAS
pushed a commit
to DensoADAS/rclcpp
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 5, 2022
Signed-off-by: Dirk Thomas <dirk-thomas@users.noreply.github.com>
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
We are assuming both pre- and post-jump callback are set for a JumpHandler, which can lead to
bad_function_callexceptions.To me it seems reasonable that only one is provided and not the other, so I took the approach of checking before calling them, but if we think they should both be required and users have to put noops as appropriate, we can add a check to the constructor instead.