-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 311
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
[SofaGraphComponent] Refactor the SceneChecker and add a new SceneChecker to test dumplicated names. #392
[SofaGraphComponent] Refactor the SceneChecker and add a new SceneChecker to test dumplicated names. #392
Conversation
…Checkr. We have more and more check to implement. Instead of hardcoding them into the SceneCheckerVisitor we now have a base class to use.
…ow-up SceneCheckerRef) # Conflicts: # modules/SofaGraphComponent/SceneCheckerVisitor.cpp
…checking # Conflicts: # SofaKernel/modules/SofaSimulationGraph/DAGNode.cpp # modules/SofaGraphComponent/SceneCheckerVisitor.cpp
Hi all, |
[ci-build] |
1 similar comment
[ci-build] |
This one seems to be ok & taggued ready. So I merge it. |
checker.validate(root.get()) ; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
void checkDuplicatedNames() | ||
{ | ||
EXPECT_MSG_EMIT(Error) ; |
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.
@damienmarchal, I think you meant EXPECT_MSG_NOEMIT
here.
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.
Correct #405
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.
Haha didn't see that yet, will do ;-)
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.
I was so ashamed to have merged something with obviously broken test that I quickly fix it ;)
Hi all,
This PR is implementing what was discussed in in #362
CHANGELOG:
This PR:
Reviewers will merge only if all these checks are true.