Resolve conflict

Author: tehampson

src/app/CommandHandler.cpp

@@ -540,22 +540,19 @@ CHIP_ERROR CommandHandler::AddStatusInternal(const ConcreteCommandPath & aComman
 void CommandHandler::AddStatus(const ConcreteCommandPath & aCommandPath, const Protocols::InteractionModel::Status aStatus,
                                const char * context)
 {
-<<<<<<< HEAD
-=======
 
     CHIP_ERROR error = FallibleAddStatus(aCommandPath, aStatus, context);
 
     if (error != CHIP_NO_ERROR)
     {
         ChipLogError(DataManagement, "Failed to add command status: %" CHIP_ERROR_FORMAT, error.Format());
-        // TODO we could call mpResponder->ResponseDropped() if err == CHIP_ERROR_NO_MEMORY. This should
-        // bhe done as a follow up so that it can be evaluated as a standalone change.
+        // TODO(#30453) we could call mpResponder->ResponseDropped() if err == CHIP_ERROR_NO_MEMORY. This should
+        // be done as a follow up so that change can be evaluated as a standalone PR.
 
         // Do not crash if the status has not been added due to running out of packet buffers or other resources.
         // It is better to drop a single response than to go offline and lose all sessions and subscriptions.
         VerifyOrDie(error == CHIP_ERROR_NO_MEMORY);
     }
->>>>>>> master
 }
 
 CHIP_ERROR CommandHandler::FallibleAddStatus(const ConcreteCommandPath & path, const Protocols::InteractionModel::Status status,

src/app/CommandResponder.cpp

@@ -90,8 +90,8 @@ void CommandResponder::StartSendingCommandResponses()
         // TODO(#30453): It should be our responsibility to send a Failure StatusResponse to the requestor
         // if there is a SessionHandle, but legacy unit tests explicitly check the behavior where
         // we do not send any message. Changing this behavior should be done in a standalone
-        // PR where only that specific change is made. Here is a possible solution that should
-        // be done that fulfills our responsibility to send a Failure StatusResponse, but this causes unit
+        // PR where only that specific change is made. Here is a possible solution that could 
+        // be used that fulfills our responsibility to send a Failure StatusResponse. This causes unit
         // tests to start failing.
         //   ```
         //   if (mExchangeCtx && mExchangeCtx->HasSessionHandle())