Improve nodiscard adoption for OSAL call sites

[thatguysumeetkumar-code]

Fix the issue : #215

Improvement using [[nodiscrd]] for OSAL return types.

[github-actions]

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run --lockfile_mode=error //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: eec31273-0e75-43c3-a9a9-475f9eff2124
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (35 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (80 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (112 packages loaded, 109 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (151 packages loaded, 2872 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (152 packages loaded, 5482 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (153 packages loaded, 6257 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (163 packages loaded, 8261 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 8271 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 8271 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (167 packages loaded, 10159 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (167 packages loaded, 10159 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 10409 targets configured).
[11 / 16] Creating runfiles tree bazel-out/k8-opt-exec-ST-d57f47055a04/bin/external/score_tooling+/dash/tool/formatters/dash_format_converter.runfiles [for tool]; 0s local
[13 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileClasses external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath_classes; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox
[14 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 25.542s, Critical Path: 2.91s
INFO: 16 processes: 12 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 16 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

[github-actions]

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

[MaciejKaszynski]

I think ASSERT_TRUE would be nice here

[thatguysumeetkumar-code]

If I understood correctly ASSERT_TRUE(ipcServer.init(makeUniqueIpcName()) == ifappl::CheckpointIpcServer::EIpcInitResult::kOk) << "CheckpointIpcServer init failed";

[MaciejKaszynski]

Would it make sense to assert here? otherwise we are in an undefined state

[thatguysumeetkumar-code]

If I understood correctly const auto init_result = ipc_request_semaphore_.init(1U, false); assert((score::lcm::internal::osal::OsalReturnType::kSuccess == init_result) && "ControlClient semaphore initialization failed");

[MaciejKaszynski]

Actually there are baselibs asserts, think we should be using it SCORE_LANGUAGE_FUTURECPP_ASSERT_PRD_MESSAGE since this would be useful info for user. https://github.com/eclipse-score/baselibs/blob/866daca52e8d886a04628be138800d103a5c015b/score/language/futurecpp/include/score/assert.hpp

[MaciejKaszynski]

Looking at this again, I am a bit apprehensive with this one.

Looking at the possible errors we can have EINVAL for which I think we can assert that this is not returned as if an invalid sempahore is used this would be a logical error. And EOVERFLOW for which I would want an error log as it probably means that there is some problem with LCM being stuck.

[MaciejKaszynski]

Same thing with the change on Line 383

[thatguysumeetkumar-code]

Address review comments.

[thatguysumeetkumar-code]

@MaciejKaszynski Can I run the same pipeline locally ?
Or It's a CI thing ?