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

Add latest features #7

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 31, 2024
Merged

Add latest features #7

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 31, 2024

Conversation

eneufeld
Copy link
Contributor

Contributed on behalf of STMicroelectronics

Co-authored-by: Christian W. Damus cdamus.ext@eclipsesource.com
Co-authored-by: Anthony Fusco anthony.fusco@st.com
Co-authored-by: Camille Letavernier cletavernier@eclipsesource.com
Co-authored-by: Stefan Dirix sdirix@eclipsesource.com
Co-authored-by: Maxime DORTEL (STM) maxime.dortel@st.com
Co-authored-by: Nina Doschek ndoschek@eclipsesource.com
Co-authored-by: Gabriel GASNOT gabriel.gasnot@st.com
Co-authored-by: FlorentPastorSTM florent.pastor@st.com

  • feat: Deferred compound commands API Implement a new API for construction of late-defined compound commands, in which
  • the scope of model edits is declared up-front to exclude concurrent commands that would interfere
  • executability of the compound does not require the commands to be known a priori
  • a separate can-execute predicate can be provided that asserts the executability of the commands without actually having to prepare them
  • a strict option does allow to prepare the compound for executability test delegating to its contained commands
  • document the primary use case for the deferred compound command
  • fix: clear frontend subscriptions on modelhub dispose Previously, when a ModelHub was disposed in the backend, the cached frontend pipelines were not cleared. Therefore a subscription to a now no longer existing ModelHub was reused when a ModelHub with the same context was created. As a consequence new frontend subscription to the following ModelHubs were not notified. This is now fixed.

Contributed on behalf of STMicroelectronics

Co-authored-by: Christian W. Damus <cdamus.ext@eclipsesource.com>
Co-authored-by: Anthony Fusco <anthony.fusco@st.com>
Co-authored-by: Camille Letavernier <cletavernier@eclipsesource.com>
Co-authored-by: Stefan Dirix <sdirix@eclipsesource.com>
Co-authored-by: Maxime DORTEL (STM) <maxime.dortel@st.com>
Co-authored-by: Nina Doschek <ndoschek@eclipsesource.com>
Co-authored-by: Gabriel GASNOT <gabriel.gasnot@st.com>
Co-authored-by: FlorentPastorSTM <florent.pastor@st.com>

* feat: Deferred compound commands API
Implement a new API for construction of late-defined compound
commands, in which
- the scope of model edits is declared up-front to exclude concurrent
  commands that would interfere
- executability of the compound does not require the commands to be
  known a priori
- a separate can-execute predicate can be provided that asserts the
  executability of the commands without actually having to prepare them
- a strict option does allow to prepare the compound for executability
  test delegating to its contained commands
- document the primary use case for the deferred compound command

* fix: clear frontend subscriptions on modelhub dispose
Previously, when a ModelHub was disposed in the backend, the cached
frontend pipelines were not cleared. Therefore a subscription to a now
no longer existing ModelHub was reused when a ModelHub with the same
context was created. As a consequence new frontend subscription to the
following ModelHubs were not notified. This is now fixed.
Copy link
Contributor

@ndoschek ndoschek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you @eneufeld, LGTM 🎉

@eneufeld eneufeld merged commit 23f3737 into main Oct 31, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants