Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New DDS profile for a flaky test #437

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

New DDS profile for a flaky test #437

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

tcappellari-bdai
Copy link
Collaborator

Change Overview

Added in a new DDS profile based off of https://github.com/bdaiinstitute/bdai/pull/6448 to fix a flaky test caused by race conditions in service discovery in FastDDS.

Testing Done

[x] I ran the pytests locally a few times and saw the flaky test pass but unsure how to robustly test it since it usually passes in CI but not always

Please create a checklist of tests you plan to do and check off the ones that have been completed successfully. Ensure that ROS 2 tests use domain_coordinator to prevent port conflicts. Further guidance for testing can be found on the ros utilities wiki.

Copy link
Collaborator

@khughes-bdai khughes-bdai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM as long as CI passes

@@ -130,6 +130,8 @@ target_include_directories(test_kinematic_service
)
target_link_libraries(test_kinematic_service spot_api)

ament_add_pytest_test(spot_driver_pytest ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR} TIMEOUT 900)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we want to go with this approach of 900s for all of the tests or the one below which loops over and gives individual tests targets?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be clear I am not leaning one way or the other. Just checking

@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10117260442

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 53.008%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 10042471786: 0.1%
Covered Lines: 1912
Relevant Lines: 3607

💛 - Coveralls

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants