Closed
Conversation
Member
|
As far as I understood this PR can now be closed? |
Contributor
Author
|
Yes, thank you. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Found while getting #6870 to work: In one of the unit tests, we create a
Particles::Property::Manager. Internally, this class assumes that it has been initialized, which specifically means that via itsSimulatorAccessbase class it can callget_simulator(). The manage object then uses the reference to theSimulatorobject to initialize the plugins it manages.In this test (a unit test), we only create the
Managerobject, but never set up aSimulatorobject. That works in the current context because we don't actually ever do anything with a simulator. But it means thatget_simulator()returns a null reference and we then hand that to the plugins. It's a miracle that nobody ever hit an assertion with this, but now I do in #6870, and so this needs to be fixed :-)The approach is to create a dummy
Simulatorobject and then initialize it with the minimal amount of fuss one can get away with.