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/utm/off_nominal_planning] Add 'down USS with equal priority conflicts not permitted' scenario validating SCD0010 #383

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Dec 11, 2023

Conversation

mickmis
Copy link
Contributor

@mickmis mickmis commented Dec 1, 2023

This scenario, which only applies when the local regulation does not allow equal priority conflicts at the highest level, is built on top of the SCD0005 scenario, which see its implementation slightly refactored in this PR (and has a few cosmetic enhancements)

Do note:

…ority conflicts not permitted' scenario validating SCD0010
@BenjaminPelletier
Copy link
Member

I've left a TODO there to remember to include the mechanism enabling the test designer to skip it. I've done so because I was not sure how to do that properly. I will happily update this PR if I have some pointers/examples, otherwise that can be left for the future. Up to the reviewer.

When a test suite is not provided a resource required by a particular test scenario, that test scenario is skipped. But, note that failing to provide a resource required by a test suite will result in an error. To mark a test suite resource as optional, just suffix it with ?. So, just define a resource as optional in the test suite and don't provide it in order to skip any scenarios that need that resource.

@mickmis
Copy link
Contributor Author

mickmis commented Dec 7, 2023

FYI this PR will need some other additional changes, I will open a separate PR in parallel with those.
This is done, this PR now also contains the changes of #389. So I'd suggest to first review and merge #389, then update this PR with the latest changes on main.

Additionally @BenjaminPelletier I've updated the suite configuration to make the intents optional. If you could have a look at those changes to validate that this is what you were expecting. Thanks!

Copy link
Member

@BenjaminPelletier BenjaminPelletier 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 -- one comment, though I think it can be addressed in a future PR.

@BenjaminPelletier BenjaminPelletier merged commit 44be7a7 into interuss:main Dec 11, 2023
9 checks passed
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2023
…ority conflicts not permitted' scenario validating SCD0010 (#383)

* [uss_qualifier/utm/off_nominal_planning] Add 'down USS with equal priority conflicts not permitted' scenario validating SCD0010

* set resource as optional to enable skipping test

* [mock_uss/f3548] add check for priority allowed in locality; use CHE locality in CI

* revert default mock USS locality

* setup f3548 suite for optional preemption flight intents

* revert mistake

* revert 2nd mistake

* update resource configuration

* revisit naming of flight intents 44be7a7
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