-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 157
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
Fix expectation of "Incompatible QoS" messages in unit test #496
Fix expectation of "Incompatible QoS" messages in unit test #496
Conversation
Should the existence of such a warning really be ignored in the test? Should the test not either ensure that no such warning is present or that an excepted warning is present? |
That test's purpose is to test for the presence or non-presence of topic messages received from a publisher. There could be another test that tests for the presence or non-presence of a warning, but that would be more reasonable if the default |
Regardless, why does that warning pop up in the first place? |
The test is purposely using a publisher with a QoS policy that's incompatible with the custom set |
Then the test should also cover that the user see the desired warning. |
149ddd8
to
bc2ea93
Compare
Okay @dirk-thomas, I have updated the test to do so. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall LGTM
assert not command.output, ( | ||
'Echo CLI should not have received anything with incompatible QoS' | ||
) | ||
if 'rmw_fastrtps' in get_rmw_implementation_identifier(): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mm318 mind to add a TODO for removal once ros2/rmw_fastrtps#356 is addressed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mm318 there're some |
Hi @hidmic, I have resolved the |
Hi @hidmic, I think this pull request is ready to be merged. Thanks! |
Let's hold off on merging this pull request until we've reached a conclusion on #500 (comment), because if we were to revert the changes in #410, then the contents of the expected warning message will be different. |
Signed-off-by: Miaofei <miaofei@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Miaofei <miaofei@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Miaofei <miaofei@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Miaofei <miaofei@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Miaofei <miaofei@amazon.com>
f01c183
to
550f257
Compare
Signed-off-by: Miaofei <miaofei@amazon.com>
CI for both this PR and ros2/rclpy#553: |
@hidmic is this ready to be merged? |
It is, assuming the discussion in #500 (comment) |
PR ros2/rclpy#553 is enough to solve that discussion. IMO, this PR is ready to be merged. @mm318 WDYT? |
I don't plan on making anymore changes to this pull request. It should be merged to also fix #492. Thanks! |
Closes #492
The
test_echo_pub.py
unit test is failing due to interpreting newly added warning messages as received messages from a publisher. This pull request filters out those warning messages.