Unit tests for ROSPlan (revised) #200
Conversation
Updating forks
… for ProblemGenerator
Merge new commits in KCL-planning to martinkoling fork
…roblem interface working
I am currently trying to find out why in travis CI the tests are not passed but in my computer they do. |
|
Yes, I and Michael have been wondering why that is the case since I started the project. Travis CI is triggering the test with catkin run_tests command |
…ve .rosinstall file
…est binaries in CMake
oscar-lima
changed the title
|
Ready for review! |
| <arg name="domain_path" default="$(find rosplan_planning_system)/test/turtlebot_demo/domain_turtlebot_demo.pddl" /> | ||
| <arg name="problem_path" default="$(find rosplan_planning_system)/test/turtlebot_demo/problem.pddl" /> | ||
| <arg name="data_path" default="$(find rosplan_planning_system)/test/turtlebot_demo/" /> | ||
| <arg name="domain_path" default="$(find rosplan_planning_system)/test/pddl/turtlebot/domain.pddl" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this belong here? not sure if the rosplan_system launches should have hardcoded domains. Same applies to the other launches below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Short story: yes it does. (see motivation below)
Earlier it pointed to rosplan demos:
<arg name="domain_path" default="$(find rosplan_demos)/common/domain_turtlebot_demo.pddl" />
When rosplan_demos were de attached from main implementation the idea was to make a test domain, which could be reused as well for unit test purposes while keeping this repository self-contained (fully independent of rosplan_demos). Later on, the unit tests grew to include an amazon and a small roomba domain (contributed by @martinkoling), so this change here is an attempt to organize the different domains in folders.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree and understood, but still not sure that the planner_interface should have hardcoded paths, the test should, but don't know if the interface one. @m312z what are your thoughts on this? I don't have a clear answer either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The unit test launch file does not need a harcoded path, but reuses the example launch file (taking advantage of being a parameterized one).
We could do something like:
<arg name="domain_path" default="foo" />
and tests will still be able to work, however I think is more clear to the user to provide a full self contained example of how to use the launch file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with Oscar on this one. The launch files contain default values that work (pointing to some example domain) and keep the repo self-contained. I think it is more helpful when learning how things work to see exactly where the domain file is referenced.
|
Looks good to me now. I can see 41 tests running and passing in the Travis build. From now we should be able to add some more tests as we go. |
Refactored version of #185