==================================================================
Known Issues with the Current Implementation of the RoSA Framework
==================================================================

.. contents::
   :local:

TODO
====

* Project logo - `docs/_themes/rosa-theme/static/logo.png`
* License?
* Packaging with
  `CPack <https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/module/CPack.html>`_.
* What about design documentation on the basics of RoSA?
* What about testing the framework?

Known Issues
============

The issues that are listed below are described assuming :ref:`minimal build
dependencies <build_deps>` are met.

* C++

  * The noexcept-specification is part of the function type since C++17 but
    `std::function` is not defined for noexcept template arguments. So we cannot
    enforce the expected noexcept semantics for functions stored in
    `std::function`. See affected functions
    `rosa::Invoker::wrap()`, `rosa::deluxe::DeluxeAgent::DeluxeAgent()`,
    `rosa::deluxe::DeluxeSensor::DeluxeSensor()`, and
    `rosa::deluxe::DeluxeSensor::registerSimulationDataSource()`.

* MSVC

  * While :ref:`RoSA does not use exceptions <nortti-noexceptions>`, we cannot
    disable unwind semantics with MSVC because some included header files define
    functions that use exceptions.

* Doxygen

  * "Potential recursive class relation" is detected for `rosa::GenSeq`, which
    is true if one ignores the template specialization for the terminal case.
    It would be nice not to have this pointless warning.

* clang-tidy

  * Clang-tidy reports warnings about `noexcept` marking for the move
    constructor and move assignment operator of `rosa::Optional` in some
    situations when the template with the non-specialized argument list is used
    -- for example, in the file `example/deluxe-interface/deluxe-interface.cpp`.
    However, the condition for the `noexcept` marking should be met and the
    warning is pointless.