Immediate executor

[klemens-morgenstern]

No description provided.

[cppalliance-bot]

Timeline tracing charts: https://2672.beast.tracing.cppalliance.org/index.html

[klemens-morgenstern]

Note: get_associated_immediate_executor works with composed ops.

[cppalliance-bot]

Timeline tracing charts: https://2672.beast.tracing.cppalliance.org/index.html

[klemens-morgenstern]

Specific tests are still needed. boost.async supports it, so that might be a useful first test.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2672 (de158cf) into develop (177a122) will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 88.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2672      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    92.97%   92.92%   -0.05%     
===========================================
  Files          177      178       +1     
  Lines        13658    13697      +39     
===========================================
+ Hits         12698    12728      +30     
- Misses         960      969       +9     

Files	Coverage Δ
...lude/boost/beast/_experimental/http/icy_stream.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...st/beast/_experimental/test/immediate_executor.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
include/boost/beast/_experimental/test/stream.hpp	75.00% <ø> (ø)
include/boost/beast/core/async_base.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
include/boost/beast/core/basic_stream.hpp	80.39% <ø> (ø)
include/boost/beast/core/buffered_read_stream.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
include/boost/beast/core/detect_ssl.hpp	92.42% <ø> (ø)
include/boost/beast/core/flat_stream.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ude/boost/beast/core/impl/buffered_read_stream.hpp	91.37% <100.00%> (+0.15%)	⬆️
include/boost/beast/http/impl/read.hpp	98.46% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
... and 8 more

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 177a122...de158cf. Read the comment docs.

[klemens-morgenstern]

@ashtum Can you review this?

[fpelliccioni]

NIT: formatting

Suggested change

	return net::get_associated_immediate_executor(
	h_, wg1_.get_executor());
	return net::get_associated_immediate_executor(
	h_, wg1_.get_executor());

[fpelliccioni]

Suggested change

	const auto ex = this->get_immediate_executor();
	net::dispatch(ex, std::move(*this));
	const auto ex = this->get_immediate_executor();
	net::dispatch(ex, std::move(*this));

[fpelliccioni]

Suggested change

	const auto ex = this->get_immediate_executor();
	net::dispatch(ex, std::move(*this));
	const auto ex = this->get_immediate_executor();
	net::dispatch(ex, std::move(*this));

[fpelliccioni]

Suggested change

	const auto ex = this->get_immediate_executor();
	net::dispatch(ex, std::move(*this));
	const auto ex = this->get_immediate_executor();
	net::dispatch(ex, std::move(*this));

[fpelliccioni]

Suggested change

	const auto ex = this->get_immediate_executor();
	net::dispatch(ex, std::move(*this));
	const auto ex = this->get_immediate_executor();
	net::dispatch(ex, std::move(*this));

[fpelliccioni]

The changes in the code appear to be consistent and well-structured.

Updates made to the function comments, which generate documentation, are appropriate and coherent.

There don't seem to be significant changes to the API, with the exception of async_base::get_immediate_executor(). Given this minor adjustment, the tests appear to remain effective and relevant.

Codecov has identified several newly added lines of code that aren’t covered by tests. While I’m not entirely certain, these seem to be false positives. It would be beneficial to review and confirm these findings, either by adding the necessary tests or silencing irrelevant warnings. For example:

Codecov
/ codecov/patch
include/boost/beast/http/impl/write.hpp#L224-L225
Added lines #L224 - L225 were not covered by tests

The PR lacks a description. I recommend adding a brief description to assist both current reviewers and anyone looking at this PR in the future. This description should include the rationale behind the proposed changes (even if it seems obvious), and whether the changes resolve or address any specific issues or problems.

In summary, this PR appears to be mostly well-structured and presented. The most crucial step at this point would be to address the areas identified by Codecov and to enhance the PR description to provide clear context and complete understanding to reviewers and future observers.

Good job 🚀