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

Update production tests #578

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Dec 21, 2023
Merged

Update production tests #578

merged 10 commits into from
Dec 21, 2023

Conversation

Lohrer
Copy link
Collaborator

@Lohrer Lohrer commented Dec 20, 2023

  • Updated the test sheets
  • Fixed the "program expander" and "program 2nd expander" tests that 100% just didn't work.
  • Removed optical input from tests
  • Fans/power/temp test now asks if a main unit or expander is being tested, and only checks that unit instead of both.
  • Handle SIGINT in USB test to allow exiting before the timeout.
  • Prevent multiple SIGINTs from causing multiple attempts at killing processes in tests.py
  • Also updated VS code python formatting and linting settings. The Python plugin spun off the formatting and linting into separate plugins.

@Lohrer Lohrer requested a review from rtertiaer December 20, 2023 16:46
Copy link
Contributor

@rtertiaer rtertiaer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

a single suggestion. the case could be made to either implement it or keep it as-is.

love your aesthetic, it's pleasing to read.

amplipi/tests.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -62,37 +64,40 @@ def available(self) -> bool:
except:
return False

RCA_INPUTS = { sid: 996 + sid for sid in range(models.MAX_SOURCES) }

RCA_INPUTS = {sid: 996 + sid for sid in range(models.MAX_SOURCES)}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

suggestion: it may (or may not) make more sense to from amplipi.defaults import RCAs and use that instead of this.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Lohrer Lohrer Dec 20, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll take a look at that. I don't think that existed when Lincoln (or much less likely I) wrote this. This change is only popping up here because of auto-format actually kicking in now that I fixed the things VS Code has been yelling at us about for weeks months years.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it definitely did not exist before a month ago even. you could definitely leave it for future refactor, np.

amplipi/tests.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@Lohrer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Lohrer commented Dec 20, 2023

Apparently I broke mypy with a function attribute so hang tight while I blow everything up into a full on class...

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 20, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (2ca1da8) 51.53% compared to head (2eb1fcf) 51.60%.
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

Files Patch % Lines
amplipi/streams.py 60.00% 2 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #578      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    51.53%   51.60%   +0.07%     
===========================================
  Files           24       24              
  Lines         5676     5676              
===========================================
+ Hits          2925     2929       +4     
+ Misses        2751     2747       -4     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 51.60% <60.00%> (+0.07%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@Lohrer Lohrer marked this pull request as ready for review December 20, 2023 21:56
@Lohrer Lohrer merged commit ad83ff4 into develop Dec 21, 2023
3 checks passed
@Lohrer Lohrer deleted the tests branch December 21, 2023 14:27
@Lohrer Lohrer mentioned this pull request Dec 22, 2023
8 tasks
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