Skip to content
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

test parse_radio_block done #82

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Apr 5, 2024

Conversation

Juan-789
Copy link
Contributor

^^^

@EliasJRH
Copy link
Contributor

this pr should make the checking of the block contents easier once implemented. Until then can you also add some tests to ensure that we catch errors correctly?

@Juan-789
Copy link
Contributor Author

Surely

Copy link
Collaborator

@linguini1 linguini1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure what this is testing that isn't covered by test_block_data and test_block_header in the tests/parsing/ directory. Was there something those test cases don't cover that you were hoping to implement? Could that test be added to one of the other test files?

@EliasJRH
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure what this is testing that isn't covered by test_block_data and test_block_header in the tests/parsing/ directory. Was there something those test cases don't cover that you were hoping to implement? Could that test be added to one of the other test files?

I wanted to test that the parse_radio_block function works correctly when applied generally to the received information, whereas test_block_data tests for specific block types.

@linguini1
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm not sure what this is testing that isn't covered by test_block_data and test_block_header in the tests/parsing/ directory. Was there something those test cases don't cover that you were hoping to implement? Could that test be added to one of the other test files?

I wanted to test that the parse_radio_block function works correctly when applied generally to the received information, whereas test_block_data tests for specific block types.

Gotcha, makes sense!

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Juan-789 Juan-789 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed the issues mentioned

@linguini1
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR conflicts with main so make sure you merge main and re-request a review.

Copy link
Collaborator

@linguini1 linguini1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please also make sure you format your code and run the workflow tests locally so they don't fail.

@Juan-789 Juan-789 requested a review from linguini1 March 27, 2024 00:13
@Juan-789
Copy link
Contributor Author

nvm it broke

Copy link
Collaborator

@linguini1 linguini1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also double check the workflows locally!

@Juan-789 Juan-789 requested a review from linguini1 March 30, 2024 00:05
@Juan-789 Juan-789 self-assigned this Mar 30, 2024
@linguini1 linguini1 merged commit e8d6fa4 into CarletonURocketry:main Apr 5, 2024
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants