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

Regressions Extra Node Info #15555

Conversation

RobertGlobant20
Copy link
Contributor

Purpose

Adding code for getting extra info and fix flaky regressions
Instead of using a hard-coded value like 58 got the list of expected nodes names in a variable and then if the test fails log the missing nodes.

Declarations

Check these if you believe they are true

  • The codebase is in a better state after this PR
  • Is documented according to the standards
  • The level of testing this PR includes is appropriate
  • User facing strings, if any, are extracted into *.resx files
  • All tests pass using the self-service CI.
  • Snapshot of UI changes, if any.
  • Changes to the API follow Semantic Versioning and are documented in the API Changes document.
  • This PR modifies some build requirements and the readme is updated
  • This PR contains no files larger than 50 MB

Release Notes

Adding code for getting extra info and fix flaky regressions

Reviewers

@QilongTang @mjkkirschner

FYIs

Instead of using a hard-coded value like 58 got the list of expected nodes names in a variable and then if the test fails log the missing nodes.
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 16, 2024

UI Smoke Tests

Test: success. 11 passed, 0 failed.
TestComplete Test Result
Workflow Run: UI Smoke Tests
Check: UI Smoke Tests

@@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ namespace DynamoCoreWpfTests
class NodeAutoCompleteSearchTests : DynamoTestUIBase
{

private readonly List<string> expectedNodes = new List<string> { "ByFillet", "ByFilletTangentToCurve", "ByGeometry", "ByMinimumVolume", "ByBlendBetweenCurves", "ByTangency", "ByLineAndPoint", "ByJoinedCurves", "ByThickeningCurveNormal", "ByLoft", "ByLoft", "ByLoftGuides", "BySweep", "ByLoft", "ByLoft", "ByRevolve", "BySweep", "BySweep2Rails", "ByLoft", "ByLoft", "ByPatch", "ByRevolve", "ByRuledLoft", "BySweep", "BySweep2Rails", "BuildFromLines", "BuildPipes", "ByExtrude", "ByPlaneLineAndPoint", "ByRevolve", "BySweep", "DoesIntersect", "IsAlmostEqualTo", "DistanceTo", "Intersect", "IntersectAll", "Project", "Project", "ProjectInputOnto", "ProjectInputOnto", "Split", "Trim", "SerializeAsSAB", "ClosestPointTo", "Join", "ByGroupedCurves", "SweepAsSolid", "ExportToSAT", "SweepAsSurface", "LocateSurfacesByLine", "BridgeEdgesToEdges", "BridgeEdgesToFaces", "BridgeFacesToEdges", "BridgeFacesToFaces", "CreateMatch", "ExtrudeEdgesAlongCurve", "ExtrudeFacesAlongCurve", "PullVertices" };
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

perhaps sorting this list, and the found nodes alphabetically first would make sure we don't encounter any weirdness from results being in different orders.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oh, actually I think you're correct and it does not matter because except should not be affected by order, it's about sets, not lists.

@reddyashish
Copy link
Contributor

The helix test suite is still failing on this PR.

@RobertGlobant20 RobertGlobant20 changed the title Fixing Regressions Extra Node Info Regressions Extra Node Info Oct 17, 2024
@RobertGlobant20
Copy link
Contributor Author

The helix test suite is still failing on this PR.

Well this change is just for adding extra info about the missing nodes (just when the the NodeAutocomplete tests are failing)

Trying to execute the job again due that yesterday was failing due to Helix regressions (not related to this change).
@reddyashish
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like the test failures are not related to this. Merging this to unblock and will create a task to handle the failing helix tests.

@reddyashish reddyashish merged commit d05c5a6 into DynamoDS:master Oct 17, 2024
23 of 24 checks passed
@RobertGlobant20
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mjkkirschner could you update your PR with latest changes in this commit, just to see if the NodeAutocomplete tests are still failing and if that is the case get more details about the missing nodes?

@QilongTang QilongTang added this to the 3.4 milestone Oct 19, 2024
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.

4 participants