[20722] Force unlimited ResourceLimits if lower or equal to zero (backport #4617)

[mergify[bot]]

Description

This PR forces the ResourceLimitsQoS values (max_samples, max_instances and max_samples_per_instance) to be considered as unlimited if a value greater than zero is NOT provided.

@Mergifyio backport 2.13.x 2.10.x 2.6.x

Fixes #4609

Contributor Checklist

• [x] Commit messages follow the project guidelines.
• [x] The code follows the style guidelines of this project.
• [x] 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.
• [x] Changes are ABI compatible.
• [x] Changes are API compatible.
• N/A New feature has been added to the versions.md file (if applicable).
• [x] New feature has been documented/Current behavior is correctly described in the documentation. Related documentation PR: eProsima/Fast-DDS-docs#738
• [x] Applicable backports have been included in the description.

Reviewer Checklist

• [x] The PR has a milestone assigned.
• [x] The title and description correctly express the PR's purpose.
• [x] Check contributor checklist is correct.
• [ ] Check CI results: changes do not issue any warning.
• [ ] Check CI results: failing tests are unrelated with the changes.

---

This is an automatic backport of pull request #4617 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

[mergify[bot]]

Cherry-pick of 31b8ad145c132aba8440ca9822e759ecdd8b54fe has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/2.6.x/pr-4617
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/2.6.x'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit 31b8ad145.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   src/cpp/fastdds/publisher/DataWriterHistory.cpp
	modified:   src/cpp/fastdds/subscriber/history/DataReaderHistory.cpp
	modified:   src/cpp/fastrtps_deprecated/publisher/PublisherHistory.cpp
	modified:   src/cpp/fastrtps_deprecated/subscriber/SubscriberHistory.cpp
	modified:   test/mock/rtps/PublisherHistory/fastdds/publisher/DataWriterHistory.hpp
	modified:   test/mock/rtps/PublisherHistory/fastrtps/publisher/PublisherHistory.h
	modified:   test/performance/throughput/ThroughputPublisher.cpp
	modified:   test/performance/throughput/ThroughputSubscriber.cpp

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	both modified:   include/fastdds/dds/core/policy/QosPolicies.hpp
	both modified:   test/unittest/dds/publisher/DataWriterTests.cpp
	both modified:   test/unittest/dds/subscriber/DataReaderTests.cpp
	both modified:   test/unittest/dds/topic/TopicTests.cpp

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

[Mario-DL]

@JesusPoderoso would you mind addressing the conflicts here ?

[Mario-DL]

@richiprosima please test this

[Mario-DL]

@JesusPoderoso we may take a look at this since the following tests have consistently failed projectroot.test.unittest.dds.publisher.DataWriterTests.InstancePolicyAllocationConsistencyKeyed projectroot.test.unittest.dds.subscriber.DataReaderTests.InstancePolicyAllocationConsistencyKeyed projectroot.test.unittest.dds.topic.TopicTests.InstancePolicyAllocationConsistencyKeyed

[Mario-DL]

@JesusPoderoso we may take a look at this since the following tests have consistently failed projectroot.test.unittest.dds.publisher.DataWriterTests.InstancePolicyAllocationConsistencyKeyed projectroot.test.unittest.dds.subscriber.DataReaderTests.InstancePolicyAllocationConsistencyKeyed projectroot.test.unittest.dds.topic.TopicTests.InstancePolicyAllocationConsistencyKeyed

These tests fail because #2807 was not backported. Consequently, in 2.6.x we are missing checking for max_samples < ( max_instances * max_samples_per_instance ) in every entity. What should we do @EduPonz @MiguelCompany ?

[Mario-DL]

As this PR implies cherry-picking a prior PR that imposes a change of behavior, we finally decided not to go ahead with none of them.