Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add sequence numbers to message info structure #587
Add sequence numbers to message info structure #587
Changes from 4 commits
ca4ae59
fe02f4a
4d08e0b
13757f5
0253e7e
2ded781
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we just implement this by taking a timestamp here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ideally we'd take the timestamp when it is received, not as it is being taken. So maybe leaving it as-is would be best. I'm not sure. Can we ask if it's possible to take a timestamp when that occurs?
I was actually just using this timestamp to debug an issue, because it's useful to know the time between the middleware receiving the message (ready to deliver) and the user code actually taking it, as it tells you something about the latency introduced by waiting or the executor or listener-style callbacks, which ever you are using.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The reception sequence number?
If we want to manually implement it, I would use a counter, not a timestamp.
I would expect the reception sequence number to not have gaps, that's why it would be weird to use a timestamp IMO.
Maybe tracing is the correct way to measure that.
We probably need just to add a couple more tracepoints.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doh, I'm just confused. I read reception and just auto-completed in my brain to timestamp, lol.
We already have the reception timestamp. You're right it should just be a counter.
So, original question, should we ask about how to implement that? We'd need to increment and store the counter when receiving the message, not taking it, so it'd have to be in a different part of the code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess it's maybe possible to do that in a listener, but I guess you could miss a message that way (because many were got together and the queue was overridden), so maybe it's better to leave it unimplemented until there's actual support for it (maybe there's support already and I haven't found it).
@MiguelCompany @richiprosima is the reception sequence number available in FastDDS?