Skip to content

Conversation

@MFransen69
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@MFransen69 MFransen69 requested a review from pwielders July 1, 2025 17:59
@rdkcmf-jenkins
Copy link
Contributor

b'## Blackduck scan failure details

Summary: 0 violations, 0 files pending approval, 1 file pending identification.

  • Protex Server Path: /home/blackduck/github/ThunderNanoServices/910/rdkcentral/ThunderNanoServices

  • Commit: f56bbcc

Report detail: gist'

@rdkcmf-jenkins
Copy link
Contributor

b'## Blackduck scan failure details

Summary: 0 violations, 0 files pending approval, 1 file pending identification.

  • Protex Server Path: /home/blackduck/github/ThunderNanoServices/910/rdkcentral/ThunderNanoServices

  • Commit: 7cb15a2

Report detail: gist'

@rdkcmf-jenkins
Copy link
Contributor

b'## Blackduck scan failure details

Summary: 0 violations, 0 files pending approval, 1 file pending identification.

  • Protex Server Path: /home/blackduck/github/ThunderNanoServices/910/rdkcentral/ThunderNanoServices

  • Commit: 7cb15a2

Report detail: gist'

@rdkcmf-jenkins
Copy link
Contributor

b'## WARNING: A Blackduck scan failure has been waived

A prior failure has been upvoted

  • Upvote reason: OK - boilerplate config

  • Commit: 7cb15a2
    '

@rdkcmf-jenkins
Copy link
Contributor

b'## Blackduck scan failure details

Summary: 0 violations, 0 files pending approval, 5 files pending identification.

  • Protex Server Path: /home/blackduck/github/ThunderNanoServices/910/rdkcentral/ThunderNanoServices

  • Commit: 91e2b88

Report detail: gist'

@rdkcmf-jenkins
Copy link
Contributor

b'## WARNING: A Blackduck scan failure has been waived

A prior failure has been upvoted

  • Upvote reason: cleared

  • Commit: 91e2b88
    '

@mhughesacn
Copy link

Cleared as this is non-blocking but the NOTICE file should get a credit to RDK Management by appending:

Copyright 2025 RDK Management
Licensed under the Apache License, V2.0

@MFransen69
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mhughesacn

Copyright 2025 RDK Management
Licensed under the Apache License, V2.0

Thanks for noticing, credit added in this PR now

@mhughesacn
Copy link

Thank you!

@MFransen69 MFransen69 marked this pull request as draft July 4, 2025 20:55
@MFransen69 MFransen69 removed the request for review from pwielders July 4, 2025 20:56
@MFransen69 MFransen69 requested a review from sebaszm September 2, 2025 11:12
@MFransen69 MFransen69 marked this pull request as ready for review September 2, 2025 11:13
sebaszm
sebaszm previously approved these changes Sep 4, 2025
Comment on lines +32 to +99
class ActivationQueueInfo {
public:
ActivationQueueInfo(const TCHAR formatter[], ...)
{
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, formatter);
Core::Format(_text, formatter, ap);
va_end(ap);
}
explicit ActivationQueueInfo(const string& text)
: _text(Core::ToString(text))
{
}
~ActivationQueueInfo() = default;

ActivationQueueInfo(const ActivationQueueInfo&) = delete;
ActivationQueueInfo& operator=(const ActivationQueueInfo&) = delete;
ActivationQueueInfo(ActivationQueueInfo&&) = delete;
ActivationQueueInfo& operator=(ActivationQueueInfo&&) = delete;

public:
const char* Data() const
{
return (_text.c_str());
}
uint16_t Length() const
{
return (static_cast<uint16_t>(_text.length()));
}

private:
std::string _text;
};

class DetailedInfo {
public:
DetailedInfo(const TCHAR formatter[], ...)
{
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, formatter);
Core::Format(_text, formatter, ap);
va_end(ap);
}
explicit DetailedInfo(const string& text)
: _text(Core::ToString(text))
{
}
~DetailedInfo() = default;

DetailedInfo(const DetailedInfo&) = delete;
DetailedInfo& operator=(const DetailedInfo&) = delete;
DetailedInfo(DetailedInfo&&) = delete;
DetailedInfo& operator=(DetailedInfo&&) = delete;

public:
const char* Data() const
{
return (_text.c_str());
}
uint16_t Length() const
{
return (static_cast<uint16_t>(_text.length()));
}

private:
std::string _text;
};
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is macro to simplify this: DEFINE_MESSAGING_CATEGORY.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, thanks I did not know

ActivateJob(ActivateJob&&) = delete;
ActivateJob& operator=(ActivateJob&&) = delete;

void Submit(const Core::ProxyType<Core::IDispatch>& job)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Aren't these methods missing interlocking?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I gave that a good thought and seen the usage pattern (what can happen in parallel) this was safe. But I certainly see your point that at first it looks unexpected and ordering could lead to issues. It is too long ago to just remember, so let me double check and get back on this

@MFransen69 MFransen69 merged commit 1c271e6 into master Sep 8, 2025
48 checks passed
@MFransen69 MFransen69 deleted the development/PIS branch September 8, 2025 15:19
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants