Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[22756] Fix error handling logic in try_setting_buffer_size #5631

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MiguelCompany
Copy link
Member

Description

This should fix #4684 by applying the last suggested changes

@Mergifyio backport 3.1.x 3.0.x 2.14.x 2.10.x

Contributor Checklist

  • Commit messages follow the project guidelines.
  • The code follows the style guidelines of this project.
  • NO: Tests that thoroughly check the new feature have been added/Regression tests checking the bug and its fix have been added; the added tests pass locally
  • N/A: Any new/modified methods have been properly documented using Doxygen.
  • N/A: Any new configuration API has an equivalent XML API (with the corresponding XSD extension)
  • Changes are backport compatible: they do NOT break ABI nor change library core behavior.
  • Changes are API compatible.
  • N/A: New feature has been added to the versions.md file (if applicable).
  • N/A: New feature has been documented/Current behavior is correctly described in the documentation.
  • Applicable backports have been included in the description.

Reviewer Checklist

  • The PR has a milestone assigned.
  • The title and description correctly express the PR's purpose.
  • Check contributor checklist is correct.
  • If this is a critical bug fix, backports to the critical-only supported branches have been requested.
  • Check CI results: changes do not issue any warning.
  • Check CI results: failing tests are unrelated with the changes.

@@ -87,11 +87,11 @@ struct asio_helpers
// Last attempt was successful. Get the actual value set.
BufferOptionType option;
socket.get_option(option, ec);
if (!ec)
if (!ec && (option.value() >= value_to_set))
Copy link
Contributor

@juanlofer-eprosima juanlofer-eprosima Feb 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Super NIT: I wonder if it's possible that set results in a value greater than the one specified. I guess not, but if that was the case maybe we should fail? Or add an extra check that the value isn't greater than initial_buffer_value, just in case (not trusting asio anymore).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ci-pending PR which CI is running
Projects
None yet
2 participants