node-addon-api
node-addon-api copied to clipboard
`const` error with `AsyncProgressWorker<T>::ExecutionProgress::Signal()`
Hi 👋
I'm getting the following error trying to call .Signal() on AsyncProgressWorker::ExecutionProgress:
View error
In file included from /home/jpaye/nuclearnet.js/node_modules/node-addon-api/napi.h:2905,
from ../src/NetworkBinding.hpp:22,
from ../src/NetworkListener.hpp:21,
from ../src/NetworkListener.cpp:18:
/home/jpaye/nuclearnet.js/node_modules/node-addon-api/napi-inl.h: In instantiation of ‘void Napi::AsyncProgressWorker<T>::Signal() const [with T = char]’:
/home/jpaye/nuclearnet.js/node_modules/node-addon-api/napi-inl.h:5797:12: required from ‘void Napi::AsyncProgressWorker<T>::ExecutionProgress::Signal() const [with T = char]’
../src/NetworkListener.cpp:83:22: required from here
/home/jpaye/nuclearnet.js/node_modules/node-addon-api/napi-inl.h:5792:3: error: passing ‘const Napi::AsyncProgressWorker<char>’ as ‘this’ argument discards qualifiers [-fpermissive]
5792 | this->NonBlockingCall(static_cast<T*>(nullptr));
| ^~~~
In file included from /home/jpaye/nuclearnet.js/node_modules/node-addon-api/napi.h:2905,
from ../src/NetworkBinding.hpp:22,
from ../src/NetworkListener.hpp:21,
from ../src/NetworkListener.cpp:18:
/home/jpaye/nuclearnet.js/node_modules/node-addon-api/napi-inl.h:5640:20: note: in call to ‘napi_status Napi::AsyncProgressWorkerBase<DataType>::NonBlockingCall(DataType*) [with DataType = void]’
5640 | inline napi_status AsyncProgressWorkerBase<DataType>::NonBlockingCall(DataType* data) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
make: *** [nuclearnet.target.mk:119: Release/obj.target/nuclearnet/src/NetworkListener.o] Error 1
make: Leaving directory '/home/jpaye/nuclearnet.js/build'
From reading the code, this is what I've been able to piece together this sequence of calls:
// 0. My code, p is a const Napi::AsyncProgressWorker<T>::ExecutionProgress&
// https://github.com/Fastcode/NUClearNet.js/blob/ecf4d9005feaad38bc139924d28de6a67b88e999/src/NetworkListener.cpp#L83
p.Signal();
// 1. https://github.com/nodejs/node-addon-api/blob/4351bffd537eab927226bf6f9b66cd385a049a43/napi-inl.h#L5881
template<class T>
inline void AsyncProgressWorker<T>::ExecutionProgress::Signal() const {
_worker->Signal();
}
// 2. https://github.com/nodejs/node-addon-api/blob/4351bffd537eab927226bf6f9b66cd385a049a43/napi-inl.h#L5876
template<class T>
inline void AsyncProgressWorker<T>::Signal() const {
this->NonBlockingCall(static_cast<T*>(nullptr));
}
// 3. https://github.com/nodejs/node-addon-api/blob/4351bffd537eab927226bf6f9b66cd385a049a43/napi-inl.h#L5725
template <typename DataType>
inline napi_status AsyncProgressWorkerBase<DataType>::NonBlockingCall(DataType* data) {
auto tsd = new AsyncProgressWorkerBase::ThreadSafeData(this, data);
return _tsfn.NonBlockingCall(tsd, OnAsyncWorkProgress);
}
It appears the jump from 2 to 3 discards const on this, causing the error.
The specific line where I call .Signal() in my code is available here along with the rest of the code for context.
@JosephusPaye thanks for reporting. I looked at our test suite as I wondered why we would not have caught it earlier. It seems we don't cover this case. Any chance you would be interested in submitting a PR with a fix and a test case?
@gabrielschulhof my first thought is we should remove the const from Signal. That might be considered a breaking change but if code calling Signal would not have compiled before due to the call to the non-const NonBlockingCall then I don't think we need to treat it like one.
@JosephusPaye thanks for reporting. I looked at our test suite as I wondered why we would not have caught it earlier. It seems we don't cover this case. Any chance you would be interested in submitting a PR with a fix and a test case?
Yes, I can do so. I'll have a look soon.
This issue is stale because it has been open many days with no activity. It will be closed soon unless the stale label is removed or a comment is made.
There's a pending PR to fix this issue: https://github.com/nodejs/node-addon-api/pull/1086
This issue is stale because it has been open many days with no activity. It will be closed soon unless the stale label is removed or a comment is made.
This issue is stale because it has been open many days with no activity. It will be closed soon unless the stale label is removed or a comment is made.
Not resolved yet.
This issue is stale because it has been open many days with no activity. It will be closed soon unless the stale label is removed or a comment is made.
Not resolved yet (as far as I can tell).
This issue is stale because it has been open many days with no activity. It will be closed soon unless the stale label is removed or a comment is made.
Was this confirmed as fixed as of #1216?
I think so but @KevinEady can you confirm?
Yep. Closing issue.
Thank you both!