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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Create more extensive procedural tests #1553

Open
skovati opened this issue Sep 9, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Create more extensive procedural tests #1553

skovati opened this issue Sep 9, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
@skovati
Labels
scheduling Anything related to the scheduling domain test Adding missing tests, correcting existing tests, or test infrastructure
Milestone
FY25 Q1 - Ad Hoc ...

Comments

@skovati
Copy link
Contributor

skovati commented Sep 9, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Currently, our test suite for procedural scheduling basically checks that we can run procedures and things don't blow up. We should run more advanced procedures and actually check sim results are as expected.

Ideally, use and refactor HasuraRequests.getSchedulingSpecGoalIds in this work.

Additionally, streamline the usage of GoalInvocationId and other associated goal java types
@skovati skovati added test Adding missing tests, correcting existing tests, or test infrastructure scheduling Anything related to the scheduling domain labels Sep 9, 2024
@skovati skovati self-assigned this Sep 9, 2024
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Todo in Aerie Sep 9, 2024
@skovati skovati mentioned this issue Sep 9, 2024
Merged
@joswig joswig added this to the FY25 Q1 - Ad Hoc Improvements milestone Nov 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@skovati skovati

Labels
scheduling Anything related to the scheduling domain test Adding missing tests, correcting existing tests, or test infrastructure
Projects
Aerie
Status: Todo
Milestone
FY25 Q1 - Ad Hoc Improvements
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@joswig @skovati