Add Alerts to RobotConfig #964
Conversation
|
Could you invert the methods (and their names) to return true if the config is valid instead of false? Its pretty common for a false return value to indicate an error so I'd like to stick to that. |
|
I don't have a problem with that. That is how I originally had them. I switched them because they would return the opposite of what you set your Alert to, which seemed counterintuitive. If there are going to be test cases, then would you want them to return the same? It's totally up to you. I'm good with either. |
|
I think its better to have true be a "normal" return value and then the user code/tests can react to false as an error. The alerts and the method return value or sort of separate things so having different values there isn't a huge deal. |
| return validatePhysicalProperties(guiConfig) | ||
| && validateDriveSystem(guiConfig) | ||
| && validateWheelProperties(guiConfig) | ||
| && validateModuleLocations(guiConfig); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If one of these methods fails, all methods afterwards would not be run, meaning that alerts that should be set might not actually get set.
This pull request adds the ability to check whether hard-coded RobotConfig matches the configuration in GUI.