-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 301
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
[CM] Throw an exception when the components initially fail to be in the required state #1729
[CM] Throw an exception when the components initially fail to be in the required state #1729
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1729 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 86.77% 86.74% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 116 116
Lines 10703 10709 +6
Branches 981 981
==========================================
+ Hits 9288 9290 +2
- Misses 1062 1066 +4
Partials 353 353
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
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.
LGTM! #1530
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.
Tested on real hardware
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.
just a small adjustment for people to be aware
Also... would a test for this be possible? |
Yes! I'll add it when I address #1530. It's in my list. I wanted to do it once the variants and others are merged. |
Thank you @christophfroehlich @bmagyar |
Co-authored-by: Bence Magyar <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Christoph Fröhlich <[email protected]>
155a5b7
to
51372f8
Compare
We faced another bug during our testing when the HW component failed to configure at the beginning, the CM prints that the Resource Manager is successfully initialized and exposes it's internal services and the spawner calls are being processed on startup.
I believe, If the user's initial intent is supposed to be in a particular state, it is better to have failed when this is not the case rather than continue to expose services and then fail again. Usually, when the services are exposed, it is expected that HW components are successfully initialized.