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

[uss_qualifier/reports] Add tested_requirements artifact #206

Merged

Conversation

BenjaminPelletier
Copy link
Member

This PR adds an experimental new artifact for uss_qualifier reports that displays (per-participant) which requirements were actually tested in the test run (and their outcomes) versus which requirements could potentially have been tested.

Additionally, schema autogeneration now imports the two specific classes we really want schema for rather than importing "everything" (since "everything" changes based on things that shouldn't be relevant).

@BenjaminPelletier BenjaminPelletier force-pushed the feature/tested-requirements branch from 77be89f to 45025e6 Compare September 15, 2023 08:33
@BenjaminPelletier BenjaminPelletier marked this pull request as ready for review September 15, 2023 08:48
Copy link
Contributor

@mickmis mickmis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I assume that the deletion of the following two files are just some cleanup and do not break anything:

  • schemas/monitoring/uss_qualifier/reports/graphs/Node.json
  • schemas/monitoring/uss_qualifier/reports/templates/InjectedConfiguration.json

Just the output path automatic deletion to consider IMO. Other than that, LGTM.

import_submodules(action_generators)

if os.path.exists(output_path):
shutil.rmtree(output_path)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Slightly dangerous? e.g. if by mistake somebody puts a / or a . as the output path. Or also if that deletes a report we actually wanted to keep. I'd go the safe way by either putting the burden of deleting an existing report to the user (possibly scripted), or by actually creating a new report with some suffix.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fair enough, and it's not necessary; removed.

@BenjaminPelletier BenjaminPelletier merged commit 694dd64 into interuss:main Sep 17, 2023
9 checks passed
@BenjaminPelletier BenjaminPelletier deleted the feature/tested-requirements branch September 17, 2023 16:06
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.

2 participants