-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 207
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
GH-303 Add support for status codes in packet reader #570
Conversation
cc4e462
to
352d6b7
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.
Thanks for PR! First set of comments.
☔ The latest upstream change (presumably these) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
3652317
to
b7f8311
Compare
Hi @gavv, thanks for your comments. I've updated the PR. When you will be ready to accept these changes, please ping me and I'll link the task. |
e25d6e2
to
85182cb
Compare
Huge work. This PR implements new behavior for which we need new tests. We should add tests how some readers handle ErrNoData and other errors returned from underlying readers. The following classes should be covered: Group 1:
Group 2:
Group 3:
Could you please either add these tests (in this or separate PR), or create an issue describing what tests to add? |
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.
Final set of comments.
ca07ba0
to
e485f7d
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.
Thanks for update!
const status::StatusCode codes[] = { | ||
status::StatusUnknown, | ||
}; | ||
|
||
for (size_t n_code = 0; n_code < ROC_ARRAY_SIZE(codes); ++n_code) { |
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.
Do you think we need a loop over codes in these tests?
It seems that all codes except NoData are handled the same way, so it should be enough to test NoData + any single code. NoData is covered by other tests (because Queue returns it), and I guess these tests can check just one another code.
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.
(same for 2 tests below)
#303