Skip to content

Bubble up errors in broadcast_signal #17

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
sandreim merged 1 commit into from
Dec 15, 2022
Merged

Bubble up errors in broadcast_signal #17

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion orchestra/proc-macro/src/impl_orchestra.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ pub(crate) fn impl_orchestra_struct(info: &OrchestraInfo) -> proc_macro2::TokenS
/// Broadcast a signal to all subsystems.
pub async fn broadcast_signal(&mut self, signal: #signal_ty) -> ::std::result::Result<(), #error_ty > {
#(
let _ = self. #subsystem_name .send_signal(signal.clone()).await;
self. #subsystem_name .send_signal(signal.clone()).await?;
Copy link
Contributor

@vstakhov vstakhov Dec 15, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One curious thing in Rust: _ is a non-binding association, so if the intention was to drop the result after the block it would not be hold...

Copy link
Collaborator

@drahnr drahnr Dec 15, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @vstakhov , I don't quite get how that is related? The only reason it exists was to make the compiler 🤫 on the unused result.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@sandreim sandreim Dec 15, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am not sure what the intention was, I'd speculate this has gone through some refactoring and original reasoning cannot be recovered. Maybe @drahnr might know something

Copy link
Collaborator

@drahnr drahnr Dec 15, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was part of the initial implementation, before it became a framework, before disputes existed, and when the base assumption was that the signal channels are almost always empty and "are not a problem".

)*
let _ = signal;

Expand Down