PRIVATE->private and PROTECTED->protected updates in Svc/FpySequencer#3737
PRIVATE->private and PROTECTED->protected updates in Svc/FpySequencer#3737LeStarch merged 4 commits intonasa:develfrom
Conversation
|
CI Spell check is unhappy with the following:
However, these are calls to existing Is there a recommended way to handle this? (I.e. (1) is this OK or (2) should I make a new ticket for this against Fpy::Sequence or (3) incorporate update to the method re-naming as part of this work or (4) something else?) |
LeStarch
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I asked @zimri-leisher to look at this as the original author. For now, this is a reasonable solution and deemed less "ugly" then a friendship statement for each test subclass created by TEST_F.
In the future, all black box testing can use TEST_F but white box testing must add methods to the test for white box access.
|
This is an unfortunately large amount of boilerplate... there would be less if we used the FRIEND_TEST macro in gtest. If you guys have deemed that more ugly than this solution, okay fine, but it would require fewer lines of code changed. It would probably be what I would have chosen, but if you've already gone and done this it's fine. I appreciate the large amount of work you've done here, @m-aleem I wish we weren't being put in this situation, but I suppose it is the right choice to switch to friend classes from private/public redefines. Now I just feel bad for using TEST_F at all... |
|
@zimri-leisher you tried something new, which has very real benefits. Do not feel bad. This is just the normal iteration and learning process. For example, for purely black-box testing (ports/command and output ports, events, telemetry) |
Change Description
Updates to
fprime/Svc/FpySequencer*to change:PRIVATE->privatePROTECTED->protectedRationale
#3446
Testing/Review Recommendations
See questions about Spell Checking CI failure in comment below
Future Work
Additional PRs to be opened for further updates corresponding to #3446