Closed makotonakai closed 1 year ago
Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r1, all commit messages. Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @makotonakai)
_
quisp/messages/connection_setup_messages.msg
line 8 at r1 (raw file):_packet ConnectionSetupRequest extends Header { int application_id;
use
@getter(getApplicationId)
and@setter(setApplicationId)
for accessors name. https://doc.omnetpp.org/omnetpp/manual/#sec:msg-defs:properties_
quisp/modules/Application/Application.h
line 33 at r1 (raw file):_protected: int application_id;
how should we specify the application_id?
Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r1, all commit messages. Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @makotonakai)
_
quisp/messages/connection_setup_messages.msg
line 8 at r1 (raw file):_packet ConnectionSetupRequest extends Header { int application_id;
use
@getter(getApplicationId)
and@setter(setApplicationId)
for accessors name. https://doc.omnetpp.org/omnetpp/manual/#sec:msg-defs:properties_
quisp/modules/Application/Application.h
line 33 at r1 (raw file):_
Roger that
protected: int application_id;
how should we specify the application_id?
That's what I'm working on. I'll add more commits if I figure that out.
Reviewed 5 of 5 files at r2, all commit messages. Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @makotonakai)
_
quisp/messages/connection_setup_messages.msg
line 8 at r2 (raw file):_packet ConnectionSetupRequest extends Header { int application_id @getter(getApplication_id) @setter(setApplication_id);
I don't want to mix the cases (snake_case and CamelCase). so
getApplicationId
andsetApplicationId
are better. we should use easy-to-expect names. I don't want to be confused getApplicationId or getApplication_id.
Sorry, I just fixed this
_
quisp/modules/Application/Application.h
line 33 at r1 (raw file):_Previously, makotonakai (Makoto "dave" Nakai) wrote… btw, do you plan to send multiple requests which have different id from one Application module in your project?
Not for my project, but it would be necessary in the future, especially if some users want to simulate several applications in the same network. I guess this can be possible if I add another id (e.g. message_id) and increment it as the number of messages increases
_
quisp/modules/Application/Application_test.cc
line 44 at r2 (raw file):_virtual ~AppTestTarget() { EVCB.gateDeleted(toRouterGate); } std::unordered_map<int, int> getEndNodeWeightMap() { return this->end_node_weight_map; } int getId() { return this->id; }
do we need this? it's a public member, so we can access to it with
app->id
.
No, it's protected one, so that's why I added a function to retrieve that like the ones for other protected members. https://github.com/makotonakai/quisp/blob/add-application-id/quisp/modules/Application/Application.h#L32
Sorry for my late replies @zigen -san
@zigen -san Could you tell me where the documentation is located?
@zigen -san, I need your additional approval cuz I fixed some unit tests that failed in the previous commit...
Fix
435
What I have done so far
The problem that I am currently encountering
The unit test for ConnectionManager (RespondToRequest) does not work on my local environment after I added the setApplication_id / getApplication_id, because the respondToRequest method itself creates ConnectionSetupResponse with the given application id, while the unit test creates the ConnectionSetupRequest using the (classical?) message outside the method
This change is