Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Selection of dependency types with cmd line option [#727 continuation] #789
Selection of dependency types with cmd line option [#727 continuation] #789
Changes from 13 commits
d9fff51
d054519
ad4ab5f
743f044
4fdd87a
b1f7316
8da2868
d0d058e
b627f59
3e6c0ce
5d11587
fa3fd33
409245d
5a843d5
50b4003
cb4b23d
235131d
0434ac8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This is a test file so fixed values may make more sense, but I still want to raise this thoughts: Should the types be taken from the upstream
catkin_pkg.package.Package
like done in the source?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 this strategy isn't adequate because it would use the same principle the function being tested uses as if I was doing
asssert all_dep_types() == all_dep_types()
, which would be always true. Imagine if a new dependency type is added toPackage
and we don't want to consider it just yet. The tests would pass without our intention.On the other hand, you might argue that this list could be constant in the source code and the test could check the list against all the dep types in
Package
. I think this is valid too and maybe it is in better agreement with my dissatisfaction with this function. I think the maintainers could help us with this decision.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.
+1 for that (I'm not a maintainer).
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.
Maybe nit, and open to counter suggestion; my personal preference is new development to happen in format 3.
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.
All the dependency types considered in the new feature were introduced in format 2. It is the minimum format required for this feature. Format 3 is compatible with it so it should work too (we could change it without breaking the tests). However, it is important to highlight that I'm ignoring the new dependency type
group_depend
, introduced in format 3. I was not sure how I would handle it, so I excluded it from this update.If the current behavior is considered adequate for format 3 given the
group_depend
ignoring, I'm ok with changing it.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 it makes sense to leave group dependencies out of this feature for the time being since the current implementation only has enough information to evaluate them in a source workspace context and it's not clear how rosdep should resolve them generally.
For manifest format I think the common convention is to use the earliest format which contains the features that are needed for the package and for the sake of making sure we maintain format 2 support I think that makes sense for these tests if not for new packages in general.