-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 178
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
feat(api,robot-server): export notes on commands #14616
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## edge #14616 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 67.47% 67.47%
=======================================
Files 2484 2484
Lines 71316 71316
Branches 9085 9085
=======================================
Hits 48120 48120
Misses 21040 21040
Partials 2156 2156
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
85917ea
to
3a2f22a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks straightforward to me.
@@ -176,6 +176,13 @@ class BaseCommand(GenericModel, Generic[CommandParamsT, CommandResultT]): | |||
" a command that is part of a calibration procedure." | |||
), | |||
) | |||
notes: Optional[List[CommandNote]] = Field( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will the ordering of the notes end up being important?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think probably not
Removing review. There is a requirement in the ticket about being able to send 0 or more notes over the wire for this to be done.
I am not familiar enough with the Protocol Engine to confirm that this is happening.
Going to look into it more Monday, will re-review then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did some digging to ensure that the requirements of the ticket are being met. Commands are sent via HTTP, with a note attached, the note is validated by querying for said command, and then checking its value.
Approval, on the condition that all tests and stuff end up passing
Commands in runs can have notes attached to them. Each command can have zero or more notes, and zero notes can be expressed as any of (notes=None, notes is-not-present, notes is empty-list). This is to make the public models a little more robust across versions. Closes EXEC-288
3a2f22a
to
8631990
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great! thank you! do we not need to update the json commands schema?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No notes (ha ha ha ha ha)
We do not, because the commands schema actually contains the |
Commands in runs can have notes attached to them. Each command can have zero or more notes, and zero notes can be expressed as any of (notes=None, notes is-not-present, notes is empty-list). This is to make the public models a little more robust across versions. Closes EXEC-288
Commands in runs can have notes attached to them. Each command can have zero or more notes, and zero notes can be expressed as any of (notes=None, notes is-not-present, notes is empty-list). This is to make the public models a little more robust across versions.
Closes EXEC-288