Iox #27 client port implementation and test part 1

[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 is a first PR to implement the design for request-response and does some refactoring of the current code, introduces some common classes and finalizes the ClientPortUser. Since it got bigger than anticipated, the ClientPortRouDi and the tests for the ClientPortUser/-RouDi will be done in the next PR to keep the PR somewhat small. I will merge this PR only once the next PR with the full tests and the finished ClientPortRouDi class is ready for review.

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

• Partly closes Request/Response communication with iceoryx #27

[elBoberido]

I know we have the rule of one class per file, but these are closely related and therefore I ask for an exception of this rule for these header

[elfenpiff]

Your exception will be granted if you grant me one favor which I may ask for in the future.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #858 (c210a13) into master (f15e9f8) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 61.11%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #858      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   74.84%   74.82%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         332      334       +2     
  Lines       11936    12017      +81     
  Branches     2007     2017      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits         8934     8992      +58     
- Misses       2228     2253      +25     
+ Partials      774      772       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	73.70% <61.11%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
unittests_timing	30.24% <0.00%> (-0.19%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...oryx_posh/internal/popo/ports/client_port_user.hpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ceoryx_posh/source/popo/ports/client_port_data.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ceoryx_posh/source/popo/ports/client_port_user.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
iceoryx_posh/source/mepoo/chunk_header.cpp	98.70% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
iceoryx_posh/source/popo/client_options.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
iceoryx_posh/source/popo/rpc_header.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
iceoryx_posh/source/roudi/process_manager.cpp	60.05% <0.00%> (-0.30%)	⬇️
iceoryx_hoofs/source/posix_wrapper/timer.cpp	61.47% <0.00%> (+0.86%)	⬆️
... and 1 more

[elBoberido]

@FerdinandSpitzschnueffler @elfenpiff rebased on master to get the plantuml documentation to this branch and adjusted it to the changes from this branch

[elBoberido]

@elfenpiff @FerdinandSpitzschnueffler I mentioned to merge this only once the follow up PR with the tests is ready. I already opened a draft PR for the ClientPortRouDi with #863. Would you mind if I merge this PR now while I continue working on the tests?

The diff is quite large if this is not merged.