Running integration tests with mock hardware #1226
Open
Conversation
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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1226 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 3.59% 18.56% +14.97%
==========================================
Files 13 33 +20
Lines 947 3405 +2458
Branches 152 419 +267
==========================================
+ Hits 34 632 +598
- Misses 843 2743 +1900
+ Partials 70 30 -40
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
1 task
URJala
force-pushed
the
mock_hardware_tests
branch
from
1c6e90d to
44cfe0b
Compare
URJala
force-pushed
the
mock_hardware_tests
branch
from
0d259f8 to
1727bd1
Compare
URJala
force-pushed
the
mock_hardware_tests
branch
from
db57a95 to
72ac7ce
Compare
urfeex
reviewed
Apr 16, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is a good idea to split up the robot_driver test into individual tests.
However, I think it would be beneficial to be able to specify mock hardware outside of the test parametrization. This way, we can run the mock hardware tests also when the integration tests flag is not set. This would effectively allow running some tests on the buildfarm, as well.
URJala
force-pushed
the
mock_hardware_tests
branch
from
ac702c4 to
c488e21
Compare
urfeex
requested changes
Apr 25, 2025
…)" This reverts commit 341506a.
)" This reverts commit 9959221.
Added some launch arguments and some checks to avoid connecting to the dashboard interface when using mock hardware, as that will not work. Maybe not the most elegant, but it works for now. Currently passthrough controller does not work at all with mock hardware, and is bypassed if using that in the test. test_trajectory_scaled_aborts_on_violation fails, as the hardware doesnt abort. test_set_io also fails as the controller cant verify that a pin has been set.
And into separate test cases. Moved timout for trajectory execution to common file
URJala
force-pushed
the
mock_hardware_tests
branch
from
8c02090 to
3cc8a2c
Compare
…t can be used by mock hardware test as well.
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.
Added some launch arguments and some checks to avoid connecting to the dashboard interface when using mock hardware, as that will not work. Maybe not the most elegant, but it works for now. Currently passthrough controller does not work at all with mock hardware, and is bypassed if using that in the test. test_trajectory_scaled_aborts_on_violation fails, as the hardware doesnt abort. test_set_io also fails as the controller cant verify that a pin has been set.