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

[commands] Clarified error messages for parallel composition commands #7161

Open
wants to merge 18 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Daniel1464
Copy link

Addresses Issue #6353.

@Daniel1464 Daniel1464 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 4, 2024 00:27
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 4, 2024

This PR modifies commands. Please open a corresponding PR in Python Commands and include a link to this PR.

@Daniel1464 Daniel1464 closed this Oct 4, 2024
@Daniel1464
Copy link
Author

Daniel1464 commented Oct 4, 2024

This PR modifies commands. Please open a corresponding PR in Python Commands and include a link to this PR.

robotpy/robotpy-commands-v2#73

@rzblue
Copy link
Member

rzblue commented Oct 4, 2024

/format

@rzblue
Copy link
Member

rzblue commented Oct 4, 2024

You'll need to install and run wpiformat yourself, the PR format command will not work if the PR is based on your main branch. For the future, it's best to make a branch for each PR.

Copy link
Contributor

@KangarooKoala KangarooKoala left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should only include the subsystems that are actually conflicting, since if we just report which ones the added command requires, we aren't actually communicating information that couldn't be found in other ways.

Copy link
Contributor

@KangarooKoala KangarooKoala left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It'd be good to extract the logic into a utility function, but personally I'm fine with this PR getting merged as it is to avoid further delays. Actual WPILib maintainers will need to weigh in, though.

throw new IllegalArgumentException(
"Multiple commands in a parallel group cannot require the same subsystems");
String.format(
"Command %s could not be added to this ParallelCommandGroup"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suggest avoiding the word ParallelCommandGroup as that class is only one of the ones relevant. "Parallel composition" would be more accurate.

@Daniel1464
Copy link
Author

Alright just resolved the naming issues brought up by @Starlight220 and changed the method to a utility method.

Copy link
Contributor

@KangarooKoala KangarooKoala 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 a bit iffy about some things:

  • ensureDisjointRequirements() doesn't feel the best to me (maybe checkDisjointRequirements() would be nicer?). Ultimately I personally am fine if it stays with the name, but I would like a better name if we can think of one.
  • I'm not the happiest about C++ having a fairly different implementation- It's largely similar enough that I think okay, but it's suboptimal. The lack of a retainAll() equivalent is problematic, though.

* @param parallelGroup The parallel group command.
* @param toAdd The command that will be added to the parallel group.
*/
public static void ensureDisjointRequirements(Command parallelGroup, Command toAdd) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Where do we want to put this method? Right now Commands consists solely of command factories, and it'd be nice if we kept it that way.

Here's some other options I thought of:

  • Protected non-static method of Command.
  • Public static method of Command.
  • Public static method of ParallelCommandGroup (which the others use).

#6032 is somewhat relevant for the placement, since if that PR was merged we could just make it a private method of ParallelCommandGroup.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah a protected non-static Command method is a great idea honestly, didn't think of that.
Currently Command doesn't have any static methods so I was hesistant to make it a public method of that, and ended up choosing Commands instead(which i didnt really like either but yeah)

Comment on lines +585 to +587
* Throws an error if a parallel group already shares
* one or more requirements with a command
* that will be added to it.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As an FYI, this will need to be formatted (and since your main branch is a PR branch, /format on your PRs won't work). You can look at the comment-command .yml file to see what steps you should run to format. (pip3 install wpiformat==2024.45, wpiformat, and ./gradlew spotlessApply)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeah forgot to run /format

Comment on lines 592 to 593
protected void ensureDisjointRequirements(Command parallelGroup, Command toAdd) {
var sharedRequirements = new HashSet<>(parallelGroup.getRequirements());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
protected void ensureDisjointRequirements(Command parallelGroup, Command toAdd) {
var sharedRequirements = new HashSet<>(parallelGroup.getRequirements());
protected void ensureDisjointRequirements(Command toAdd) {
var sharedRequirements = new HashSet<>(getRequirements());

Might as well use that it's non-static.

*/
bool RequirementsDisjoint(Command* first, Command* second);
void EnsureDisjointRequirements(Command* parallelGroup, Command* toAdd);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We could move this into the Command class too.

@Daniel1464
Copy link
Author

Just added the requested changes

Copy link
Contributor

@KangarooKoala KangarooKoala left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall, great work! Unfortunately, it can take a while to finish all of the little details.

Formatting still needs to be done, and I'm about 90% happy with the name ensureRequirementsDisjoint()- It works, but requireRequirementsDisjoint() or requireDisjointRequirements() might fit the existing naming better (CommandScheduler.requireNotComposed() and CommandScheduler.requireNotComposedOrScheduled()). The dual use of require is a bit annoying though.

@rzblue and @Starlight220- Thoughts on the removal of frc2::RequirementsDisjoint without deprecation?

Also, tests would be nice but tricky to do, so I'm not 100% sure if they're worth implementing.

@rzblue
Copy link
Member

rzblue commented Nov 18, 2024

Thoughts on the removal of frc2::RequirementsDisjoint without deprecation?

Since it was in the top level public API and not in a ::detail namespace I would air on the side of caution and deprecate it for removal.

I'm fine with the naming, and unit tests aren't necessary for this.

Copy link
Member

@rzblue rzblue 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 Command is the place for this to go. If it stays there the docs should be cleaned up to make sense in the context.

@Daniel1464
Copy link
Author

I'm not sure Command is the place for this to go. If it stays there the docs should be cleaned up to make sense in the context.

Do you mean that I should modify the docs to be more clear(or to reference the method as acting on an instance method)?

@KangarooKoala
Copy link
Contributor

The current wording is specific to parallel groups, so either we should change the wording so that it makes sense for any command (and isn't specific to checking requirements for adding a command to a parallel group) or we should move it to ParallelCommandGroup.

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.

4 participants