github-actions[bot]
commented
2 months ago | Warnings | |
|---|---|
| :warning: |
**Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR:**
- the commit message `"[Network] deprecate NetworkEvents::removeEvent() for std::function callbacks"`:
- footer's lines must not be longer than 100 characters
- *summary* looks empty
- *type/action* looks empty
- the commit message `"[Network] hide event task under private member of NetworkEvents class"`:
- *summary* looks empty
- *type/action* looks empty
- the commit message `"lib Network: add cpp syntax to structs"`:
- *summary* looks empty
- *type/action* looks empty
- the commit message `"refactor(NetworkEvents) add (optional) mutex lock for container operations"`:
- body's lines must not be longer than 100 characters
- *summary* looks empty
- *type/action* looks empty
- the commit message `"refactor(NetworkEvents) code polishing and comments"`:
- body's lines must not be longer than 100 characters
- *summary* looks empty
- *type/action* looks empty
***
**Please fix these commit messages** - here are some basic tips:
- follow [Conventional Commits style](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/)
- correct format of commit message should be: ` |
| :warning: | Please consider squashing your 8 commits (simplifying branch history). |
👋 Hello vortigont, we appreciate your contribution to this project!
Click to see more instructions ...
This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.
DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.
Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.
Review and merge process you can expect ...
We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.
1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.
Generated by :no_entry_sign: dangerJS against ab1d55ddb026cfa449502913aed9b38444d0fcf0
me-no-dev
A refactoring for
NetworkEventsclass This fixes #10365 issue and supersedes #10337, it removes pointer comparison checks for function pointer handlers but adds more safety to the code working with callback handlers container.std::functionpointer, it does not work as expected for lambdasNetworkEvents::removeEvent(NetworkEventFuncCb)as deprecated in favor of removing by callback's idNetworkEvents::onEventremove checking for duplicate event handler, this does not work for lambdas tooNetworkEvents::findmethods as unnecessary in favor of usingstditeratorsNetworkEventsclassNetworkEventCbList_tas a cpp struct with constructor, allows usingstd::vector.emplace()when adding new items to containerNetworkEvents::remove()calls to use erase-remove idiom forstd::vectorNetworkEventsclassarduino_event_id_tto make events indexing consistent for SOCs with/without WiFi also leave some index gaps to minimize renumbering on adding new eventsNetworkEvents::methodsNetworkEvents::eventName()as static, that could be used without creating class scopepostEvent()