Test error when activating low-priority conflicted flight

[hsrodriguez]

Report File

Test check
Test Validate flight 1 not activated on report line 2636

Difference from expected behavior
The test step says Flight 1 should not have been modified (because the USS kept the original accepted request). The reports says that the operation 3f7e33ff-5a6f-4321-ba47-d95360c0a715 was version 1 before and after the planning request that is what is expected in the test.
The test is still failing because the operation was not found in the DSS and since the operation is in conflict, it should not be shared in the DSS

[BenjaminPelletier]

@mickmis I'm familiar with this issue so please let me know if anything isn't clear. The sequence view artifact can be generated from the report attached above with make_artifacts.sh and I suspect we'll be doing that a fair amount going forward.

In addition to the above, the failed check description in the report is confusing -- it says "USS uss1 was supposed to have shared a new operational intent with the DSS, but no matching operational intent references were found in the DSS in the area of the flight intent" whereas the expectation per test step description is that the flight either isn't modified or is removed, and the former option (wasn't modified) actually occurred in the provided report.

[mickmis]

I think I found the issue, a missed corner-case in OpIntentValidator.expect_shared. I am writing a fix.

In addition to the above, the failed check description in the report is confusing

If I'm correct about my hypothesis and that this is basically a bug in the test framework (and not in the scenario), I think we can ignore the fact that a wrong check description was included, as that should be fixed by fixing the bug.

[mickmis]

Issue got automatically closed when merging PR with attempted fix (#391), so reopening it until it is confirmed this is fixed.
@hsrodriguez would you mind retrying on your side with the latest version to confirm the issue is fixed? Thanks

[hsrodriguez]

Thanks @mickmis, I think is working as expected now. Closing the issue.