Revisit MRP implementation #11988
Merged
Revisit MRP implementation #11988
Conversation
This file contains 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
pullapprove
bot
requested review from
andy31415,
anush-apple,
balducci-apple,
bzbarsky-apple,
carol-apple,
chrisdecenzo,
chulspro,
Damian-Nordic,
electrocucaracha,
erjiaqing,
franck-apple,
harimau-qirex,
hawk248,
holbrookt,
jelderton,
jepenven-silabs,
jmartinez-silabs,
kpschoedel,
LuDuda,
mrjerryjohns,
msandstedt,
pan-apple,
robszewczyk and
sagar-apple
|
PR #11988: Size comparison from 165ae97 to c7dabae Increases above 0.2%:
Increases (32 builds for efr32, esp32, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, qpg, telink)
Decreases (30 builds for efr32, esp32, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, qpg)
Full report (35 builds for efr32, esp32, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, qpg, telink)
|
|
PR #11988: Size comparison from b793967 to f0096d0 Increases (3 builds for qpg, telink)
Decreases (2 builds for qpg)
Full report (4 builds for qpg, telink)
|
|
PR #11988: Size comparison from 972406e to 6097e59 Increases above 0.2%:
Increases (35 builds for efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, qpg, telink)
Decreases (31 builds for efr32, esp32, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, qpg)
Full report (38 builds for efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, qpg, telink)
|
|
@kghost What are the next steps here? |
|
@woody-apple @bzbarsky-apple This PR is ready for review, waiting Boris to check it. |
bzbarsky-apple
approved these changes
Dec 1, 2021
|
PR #11988: Size comparison from 02bd2c7 to 6714b8d Increases above 0.2%:
Increases (35 builds for efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, qpg, telink)
Decreases (31 builds for efr32, esp32, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, qpg)
Full report (38 builds for efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, qpg, telink)
|
|
Fast tracking, given this looks like it's had ample time for review, and has gone stale review wise. |
bzbarsky-apple
added a commit
to bzbarsky-apple/connectedhomeip
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2021
This is failing due to a merge conflict between project-chip#11988 and project-chip#12389: the latter ends up in an error state as described in project-chip#12466 (comment) and the former makes our code a lot more sensitive to being in that error state. The fix for the test is to not use the sync mode of loopback transport, which allows the stack for sending a message to unwind before responses are delivered and avoids the "object deleted by response while we are still working with it" problem described in project-chip#12466 (comment). When the responses were made async, it turned out the test was missing some "expect response" flags that should have been there all along and it was only passing because the response happened before the send could get to the "close the exchange" stage. With async responses, exchanges were closing too early without the "expect response" flags. Separately we should figure out which parts of project-chip#12466 we should do.
kghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2021
This is failing due to a merge conflict between #11988 and #12389: the latter ends up in an error state as described in #12466 (comment) and the former makes our code a lot more sensitive to being in that error state. The fix for the test is to not use the sync mode of loopback transport, which allows the stack for sending a message to unwind before responses are delivered and avoids the "object deleted by response while we are still working with it" problem described in #12466 (comment). When the responses were made async, it turned out the test was missing some "expect response" flags that should have been there all along and it was only passing because the response happened before the send could get to the "close the exchange" stage. With async responses, exchanges were closing too early without the "expect response" flags. Separately we should figure out which parts of #12466 we should do.
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.
Problem
MRP implementation is not aligned with spec
Change overview
ReliableMessageProtocolConfigclassTesting
Verified by unit-tests