Update tests to expect no launch_ros node #474
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Signed-off-by: Shane Loretz <sloretz@osrfoundation.org>
|
CI (testing only ros2node and ros2service)
|
hidmic
approved these changes
Mar 31, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM ! Thank you cleaning this up @sloretz.
Changing expectations here is indeed the right thing to do. ros2/launch_ros#128 didn't drop the node, but made it so that it only gets created if necessary. For most ros2cli tests, that means never.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This updates tests in ros2service and ros2node to expect no launch_ros node. These tests have been failing since March 18 and failed last night on nightly release, nightly debug, nightly connext, nightly cyclone, nightly fastrtps, and nightly fastrtps dynamic.
I think ros2/launch_ros#128 might have removed an implicit launch_ros node. @hidmic does that explanation make sense? Is updating the test expectations here the right thing to do?