Iox #842 cleanup memory provider and memory block

[elBoberido]

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

1. Code follows the coding style of CONTRIBUTING.md
2. Tests follow the best practice for testing
3. Branch follows the naming format (iox-#123-this-is-a-branch)
4. Commits messages are according to this guideline
   • Commit messages have the issue ID (iox-#123 commit text)
   • Commit messages are signed (git commit -s)
   • Commit author matches Eclipse Contributor Agreement (and ECA is signed)
5. Update the PR title
   • Follow the same conventions as for commit messages
   • Link to the relevant issue
6. Relevant issues are linked
7. Add sensible notes for the reviewer
8. All checks have passed (except task-list-completed)
9. Assign PR to reviewer

Notes for Reviewer

This fixes some of the requests from #840

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

• Commits are properly organized and messages are according to the guideline
• Code according to our coding style and naming conventions
• Unit tests have been written for new behavior
• Public API changes are documented via doxygen
• Copyright owner are updated in the changed files
• PR title describes the changes

Post-review Checklist for the PR Author

1. All open points are addressed and tracked via issues

References

• Closes Cleanup MemoryProvider and MemoryBlock #842

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #843 (cf147f5) into master (ea6ea66) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 83.33%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #843      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.01%   75.05%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         328      332       +4     
  Lines       11705    11864     +159     
  Branches     1965     2001      +36     
==========================================
+ Hits         8780     8905     +125     
- Misses       2165     2191      +26     
- Partials      760      768       +8     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	73.92% <83.33%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
unittests_timing	30.56% <83.33%> (-0.10%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...h/internal/roudi/memory/port_pool_memory_block.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...iceoryx_posh/roudi/memory/generic_memory_block.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...lude/iceoryx_posh/roudi/memory/memory_provider.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
iceoryx_posh/source/roudi/memory/memory_block.cpp	66.66% <0.00%> (ø)
...include/iceoryx_posh/roudi/memory/memory_block.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...eoryx_posh/source/roudi/memory/memory_provider.cpp	94.25% <100.00%> (ø)
...e/roudi/memory/mempool_collection_memory_block.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...di/memory/mempool_segment_manager_memory_block.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...osh/source/roudi/memory/port_pool_memory_block.cpp	92.85% <100.00%> (ø)
...fs/internal/posix_wrapper/shared_memory_object.hpp	66.66% <0.00%> (-33.34%)	⬇️
... and 18 more

[mossmaurice]

Please double check all the copyright headers, otherwise LGTM.

In general, should there be death tests added for methods that use not_null?

[elBoberido]

Regarding the death test for not_null. In this specific case it's not really possible since it's a protected method and on the caller side this is only called if it's not a nullptr. I would have used a reference, but that's not possible with a void.

In general I also wouldn't do death tests for parameter with not_null since we also don't do death tests for methods with references as parameter and you could easily have something like this

int foo (int& i) {
    return i;
}
int bar(int* i) {
    return foo(*i);
}
int main() {
    return bar(nullptr); // crash will happen on `return i;` not `return foo(*i);`
}

As long as we already tested that not_null itself terminates, it is not necessary to test it again everywhere else it is used.