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

[launch_testing] remove deprecated ready_fn feature #589

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 12, 2022
Merged

Conversation

wjwwood
Copy link
Member

@wjwwood wjwwood commented Feb 1, 2022

This feature was deprecated in #346 (foxy) and should be removed by now, so we'll do it in Humble.

We realized this due to this pr (thanks for that btw): #580

I'm opening in draft because I quickly did this in the browser and I'm not sure if the related ReadyAggregator class needs to be removed. So I'll let CI run first.

CI is good, but I'm still not sure about the ReadyAggregator class, looking for input on that.

Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
@wjwwood wjwwood self-assigned this Feb 1, 2022
@wjwwood
Copy link
Member Author

wjwwood commented Feb 1, 2022

Preliminary CI:

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • Windows Build Status

@wjwwood wjwwood marked this pull request as ready for review February 2, 2022 21:11
@wjwwood wjwwood requested a review from hidmic February 2, 2022 21:12
@adityapande-1995
Copy link
Contributor

Should this line be removed as well ?

ready_fn=lambda: self._processes_launched.set()

@wjwwood
Copy link
Member Author

wjwwood commented Feb 2, 2022

The short answer is: "I don't know"

I looked at that line, but I couldn't figure out if it is part of the test runner machinery that is unfortunately named the same as the old feature users would use, or not. That's why I ran CI, I figured that if it was the old feature I'm removing some tests should fail, but maybe that's not the case.

I also sort of traced the logic and I believe that it is still used, but the difference is that the ready_fn is passed to the wrapper and not the launch_description_fn, as it used to be.

Maybe someone more familiar with launch_testing like @ivanpauno or @hidmic could comment on it.

@hidmic
Copy link
Contributor

hidmic commented Feb 4, 2022

Should this line be removed as well ?

@adityapande-1995 @wjwwood It shouldn't. That's the actual callable that the ReadyToTest action eventually invokes.

I looked at that line, but I couldn't figure out if it is part of the test runner machinery that is unfortunately named the same as the old feature users would use, or not.

TBH this whole thing is messy.

Copy link
Contributor

@hidmic hidmic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@wjwwood LGTM but

if argname == 'ready_fn':
continue

should be removed too.

Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
@wjwwood
Copy link
Member Author

wjwwood commented Feb 15, 2022

CI:

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • Windows Build Status

@hidmic
Copy link
Contributor

hidmic commented Feb 25, 2022

@wjwwood linters were still failing in that last CI.

Signed-off-by: William Woodall <william@osrfoundation.org>
@wjwwood
Copy link
Member Author

wjwwood commented Apr 7, 2022

New CI:

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • Windows Build Status

Copy link
Member

@ivanpauno ivanpauno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

Copy link
Member

@audrow audrow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me!

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.

5 participants