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

remove use of hacks #41

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

remove use of hacks #41

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

esteve
Copy link
Contributor

@esteve esteve commented Dec 20, 2013

@ghost ghost assigned esteve Dec 18, 2013
@esteve
Copy link
Contributor

esteve commented Dec 30, 2013

I added a new argument to rospy.Service (in ros_comm) so the error handling code can be overriden to suppress the rospy.logerr output. See https://github.com/esteve/ros_comm/compare/custom-error-handler

Though I don't know if that was the sole reason for patching ServiceImpl, would that change in rospy be enough?

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same when pulling ef63a55 on esteve:remove-hacks-41 into f065699 on osrf:master.

@wjwwood
Copy link
Member Author

wjwwood commented Dec 31, 2013

Interesting that the coverage went down. I wonder if the patch to rospy is not sufficient. I am pretty sure that I tested it though. Can you look into why the coverge went down?

@esteve
Copy link
Contributor

esteve commented Dec 31, 2013

Sure, no problem. src/capabilities/server.py has fairly low coverage (31%), I'll see if I can improve it a bit.

@wjwwood
Copy link
Member Author

wjwwood commented Jan 1, 2014

Specifically src/capabilities/server.py has 100% coverage in the master branch. My first thought is that somehow coverage is not getting reported for things in rospy callbacks (which is what this hack fixed: https://github.com/osrf/capabilities/blob/master/scripts/capability_server#L5-22).

@esteve
Copy link
Contributor

esteve commented Jan 2, 2014

@wjwwood Okay, I must have read the Coveralls and Travis output wrong. The change in the Service constructor signature makes the code in this branch incompatible with the released version of rospy, and thus the tests never run past the first call to the Service constructor (see https://coveralls.io/files/108492233#L281).

Also, Travis shouldn't report that the build was correct despite the errors (https://travis-ci.org/osrf/capabilities/builds/16155234#L1321), I'll make it a bit more robust.

@wjwwood
Copy link
Member Author

wjwwood commented Jan 2, 2014

Yes, there looks to be a false positive there.

esteve added 2 commits January 3, 2014 14:01

Verified

This commit was created on github.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature.
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-7.59%) to 92.41% when pulling 150c4a4 on esteve:remove-hacks-41 into f065699 on osrf:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same when pulling 150c4a4 on esteve:remove-hacks-41 into f065699 on osrf:master.

@wjwwood
Copy link
Member Author

wjwwood commented Feb 13, 2014

It is weird that this is still not getting back the coverage, it is like the fix in rospy was not sufficient to replace the hack we had in there. @esteve can you look into this, testing the coverage from source on the latest version of rospy's debs for hydro?

@wjwwood
Copy link
Member Author

wjwwood commented Mar 7, 2014

@esteve bump, lets try to resolve this by early next week if possible, I am ramping up for a 0.1.0 release soon and I would like to have these out by then.

@esteve
Copy link
Contributor

esteve commented Mar 10, 2014

@wjwwood I created a pull request for ros_comm with the changes for defining custom handlers for errors [1]. Once we merge that, we can merge this pull request.

1 - ros/ros_comm#375

@esteve
Copy link
Contributor

esteve commented Mar 20, 2014

Waiting for ros/ros_comm to be released before merging this branch.

@wjwwood wjwwood modified the milestones: 0.1.0, untargeted Apr 14, 2014
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.

None yet

3 participants