Revert "Implement inconsistent topic."

[Crola1702]

Reverts #431

As mentioned in #431 (comment). It seems this PR somehow made CycloneDDS fail on Rolling branch.

As CycloneDDS is at Tier 1 support level. I want to the PR until further investigation is done, and the issue is solved.

FYI: @clalancette @claraberendsen @Blast545

[clalancette]

So we can't actually do this revert without breaking other things (we'd also have to revert the similar PR in rclcpp, rmw_fastrtps, and rmw_connextdds). So I'm going to convert this to a draft for now and try to find out why this is failing.

[eboasson]

What's happening is that this PR

• adds an RMW_EVENT_SUBSCRIPTION_INCOMPATIBLE_TYPE event on the subscriber
• this gets mapped to DDS_INCONSISTENT_TOPIC_STATUS
• which gets passed to dds_set_status_mask in gather_event_entities (in rmw_cyclonedds_cpp) because is_event_supported (also rmw_cyclonedds_cpp) says "sure"
• and then dds_set_status_mask refuses the mask because this status is not supported on the reader and leaves the status mask whatever it is (everything enabled, probably)
• that error is not picked up (one of those "cannot happens"), and so everything proceeds happily
• and then dds_wait returns immediately because some status is set (subscription matched, or so)
• and then rclcpp::wait_for_message tries to take data, finding nothing is available and returns false
• resulting in a test failure in test_wait_for_message.cpp:42

#436 is relevant here, in that it follows the way Cyclone reports type incompatibilities. eclipse-cyclonedds/cyclonedds#1523 (comment) also goes into some detail.

I may well have reviewed something and declared it looked good because I overlooked this detail ... If so I apologise.

[clalancette]

Hey @eboasson

I may well have reviewed something and declared it looked good because I overlooked this detail ... If so I apologise.

It is definitely not your fault, it's mine. I didn't test enough on Cyclone because I thought this was more-or-less a no-op. My mistake. Anyway, I definitely appreciate your analysis, and I'll see what I can do to make it happier. Thanks!

[clalancette]

Given that we fixed this in #444, I'm going to close this out. Feel free to reopen if you think that was in error.